But, let’s sort through this: Sure, some of what Chris Daly said is off-mark (we mentioned that earlier) and almost all of it is written in a very crude tone. But some of his criticisms do warrant a discussion (even if he isn’t a journalist whose resume is up to snuff enough for Len Downie), so much so that the Post’s own ombudsman said:
My problems with the story by National Desk political reporter Perry Bacon Jr. and the headline (“Foes Use Obama’s Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him”) were that Obama’s connections to Islam are slender at best; that the rumors were old; and that convincing evidence of their falsity wasn’t included in the story.
And Howie Kurtz said:
I agree that rumors for which there is no evidence should clearly be labeled false, and that was a major shortcoming of the piece. The irony is that Post editors say they set out to knock down the Muslim rumors (and explore why they have been a continuing problem for Obama’s campaign), but the execution was poor, making it look like the paper was spreading the falsehoods instead.
So it’s not as if Daly’s raising of the issue is out of line. His tone and rather personal attacks, however, are.