Brought to you by the Star's Department of Overreacting (aka its editorial board) is the story "New Breed of Militias puts on a Friendlier Face, but Critics say it's Camouflage."
The cause for outrage is that self described militia groups are dedicating more time to community service - helping with food banks, blood drives, and so on. The theory, at least as some of the Star's quoted 'experts' say is that these acts of kindness are self motivated.So what are they doing in Missouri that's so egregious, other than exercising their constitutional freedoms?
Searching for evidence - Judy Thomas instead found gratitude on the part of the city of Union, Missouri, the Franklin Court Sherrif's department and others for the assistance they've provided. Unable to find any dirt in Missouri, Thomas had to go as far as Arizona to find a group with a blatantly unreasonable message.
That's like blaming the Missouri House of Representatives for a law passed by the New York State Assembly.
What's the point of listening to bucket quotes from 'experts' if nothing they say can be verified on the ground here in our own home state?
Is this supposed to be good journalism? It's certainly not up to Judy Thomas' normal standards - we have to wonder if her heart was really in it or if this topic was foisted on her by her editors. She goes through the motions but the case just isn't there.
We'd point to a separate article on the same day (also by Judy Thomas) that talks about how militia groups are trying to partner with the government and seek official sanctions. While 22 states recognize such groups, Thomas had to go back twenty years to find dirt on one of them.
Looking at the two articles side by side - it's hard to tell if this is supposed to be for real. One article explains the resurgence of militias as an anti-government movement. The other profile describes their desire to pair up with the government, submitting to its oversight. Which is it?
The profiles for militia groups in the two articles are completely at odds with each other.
Again, we'd point to directives from up above as the most likely explanation for the two stories. They smell like a bad assignment rather than a journalist following a real lead.
Maybe the Kansas City Star editorial board should form a militia and start doing some community service.
Comments