This was originally just a quick minipost, but with my comments on today’s article added on I decided to slip it over into a real post.

Hey Herald! Your bias is showing again! For goodness sake, have some decency.

If it seems unethical to have a reporter to cover only one side a protesters story, then it is probably just as unethical to let the protester write his own copy.

The other side of the story might include opinions from people who support the stop-loss policy. It might include opinions from people who support the war against terrorism. It could include opinions from people in uniform who believe that they have a solemn duty to defend our nation rather than demonstrate against it.

The Mayor of Ferndale fast tracks permits for businesses because business is important. Would the Mayor of Bellingham fast track a permit for the WPJC’s protester? After all protesters seem to be important to Bellingham’s ambiance. I wonder if the Herald will request emails and investigate whether or not this was fast tracked?

6/8/07 – And now today another one sided article about this demonstration against stop-loss and for many supporters a demonstration against war. I guess it isn’t completely without an opposing opinion.

Those who do disagree often never stop to talk but do holler or throw less-than-creative gestures his way from moving vehicles.

“One motorcycle went by and the guy on the front flipped me off and the chick on the back gave me a thumbs up,” he said.

But I don’t call this indictment of all those opposed to stop-loss as finger flippers an opposing opinion.  I think there are a bunch of us non-finger flippers out here who agree with stop loss, oppose this demonstration and  would actually be willing to speak with the Herald.

I also think that those two lines in the article as the sole opposition take this article and the Herald from being passively biased to actively biased. What a disgrace.