Yesterday I criticized a front-page article by the Washington Post’s Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes, who I thought demonstrated a bias against people of faith.
I stand by my appraisal of Mr. Barnes’s piece. But on reflection I want to make a clarification.
I started out my piece by quoting from a 1993 Washington Post article critical of Christians in public life before zeroing in on the article by Mr. Barnes. In the process I added a sarcastic line about the Post’s coverage of Christians in public life, implying that the paper has a chronic anti-Christian bias.
Mea culpa. To suggest, as I did, that the Post doesn’t respectfully cover people of faith who are in public life is simplistic and unwarranted. Its coverage of religion is, in fact, pretty fair-minded and often insightful. (It’s worth pointing out that the Post’s religion writer isn’t Mr. Barnes; it’s Michelle Boorstein.)
All of which is to say I was far too sweeping in my judgment, and I wanted to be sure to clarify the record. A rifle shot approach was warranted; the shot-gun approach was not.