Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

A smear continues

It is clear The Washington Post District editorial writer Ms. JoAnn Armao and columnist Mr. Robert McCartney cannot get enough joy out of bashing District Mayor Vincent C. Gray. In tandem editorial and column they continue The Washington Post’s newspaper attack on Mayor Gray.

However, Mr. McCartney in his column took it one step further by universally labeling Mayor Gray’s supporters as "apologists". And by not having the courage to name one; Mr. McCartney showed the weakness of his back and the color of his spine.

Moreover, the refusal or failure of Mr. McCartney to refer to Mayor Gray by his title of “Mayor” demonstrates Mr. McCartney’s aversion to professional decorum and community respect.

There could be only one real reason why Mr. McCartney did not name any of Mayor Gray's “apologists” in his misguided column. If he had named any The Washington Post would have been rightly obligated to print a response. What Mr. McCartney did was a tactically cheap reporter's trick.

To be clear, Mr. McCartney is not alone in committing this journalism scam. Other local columnists and reporters associated and not associated with The Washington Post are equally guilty.

To the question, in the absence of an indictment or any criminal charges filed against Mayor Gray, was he smeared by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Ronald Machen? My response is yes and Mayor Gray has also been smeared by Ms. Armao and Mr. McCartney.

Saying the judge made Mr. Machen do it should not be used as an affirmative defense to justify the reckless conduct of Ms. Armao, Mr. Machen, and Mr. McCartney. This is not an old Flip Wilson show comedic skit for laughs.

The fact Ms. Armao and Mr. McCartney find it necessary to write on this is an admission the image of unfairness and smear are not held alone by supporters of Mayor Gray. Ms. Armao and Mr. McCartney may have been surprised there are District residents who believe in justice and due process for all regardless of race or politics.

It is not a confession or a case instant epiphany for me to admit I am a strong supporter of Mayor Vincent C. Gray. While my steadfast support for Mayor Gray is on the record and stands for itself, it does not make me or others “apologists”.

I have expressed my views in direct opposition of Mr. McCartney’s columns regarding Mayor Gray. If Mr. McCartney had me in mind when he wrote his absurd column, he should have contacted me and I would have responded appropriately. If, as he has claimed, Mr. McCartney had spoken to other supporters of Mayor Gray, yet still disagreed with them Mr. McCartney was intellectually dishonest and disingenuous to smear them anonymously.

What is happening now - Ms. Armao and Mr. McCartney are seeking to rewrite history to mask over their participation in this smear. It is obvious they were hoping Mayor Gray would have been charged by now for a crime for which he boldly proclaims his innocence.

Neither Ms. Armao nor Mr. McCartney respects the principles of due process and innocent until proven guilty – in a court of law – not by editorial or newspaper column.

It does not matter to Ms. Armao or to Mr. McCartney that Mayor Gray has not been charged with any crime. It also appears to be unimportant to them a jury could determine Mr. Gray not to be guilty of any crime.

Ms. Armao and Mr. McCartney want and need an indictment of Mayor Gray to justify what they have done. They have written themselves into an abyss and hope Mr. Machen will give them lifeline out of a hole.

Ms. Armao’s editorial and Mr. McCartney’s column are not about seeking justice or respecting the parameters of the Constitution. They are about saving face.

Mr. McCartney was wrong to disparage Mayor Gray’s supporters as “apologists” and he owes them all an apology.

E-mail contact information:

Twitter: @robert158

Report this ad