HoodaThunk? commentary is rather roundabout, but understandable. The Post’ article slams Greg Letiecq, but honestly reports and admits his effectiveness. Effectiveness is important, and neither the Post nor Letiecq seem to be unprincipled. So HoodaThunk? ends up applauding both the Post’s article and BVBL.
My own feeling about the Post and BVBL are a bit more straight forward. Both are effective, but both are also much too agenda driven. When the truth runs counter to their agenda, I do not feel I can count on either to provide me something that approaches the truth. So I do not bother to read either the Post or BVBL any more than I find necessary.
Nevertheless, when HoodaThunk? mentioned BVBL’s clarification (here), I was curious. How was Mr. BVBL going to explain that he had never actually called Faisal Gill a terrorist? Given his explanation, does anyone have to wonder why the Washington Post might have “misrepresented” Mr. BVBL’s statements about Faisal Gill? 😦