Bill O'Reilly reported Friday about Charles Rust-Tierney, a former president of the ACLU of Virginia, who was arrested for posession of child pornography. He also questioned which news organizations would report this story, which was sent out over the AP wire service to all media outlets, major and minor.
ABC reported it (link), and the Washington Post put it in the "B" section, according to Mr. O'Reilly. The NY Post, a conservative paper, didn't report it (which he didn't point out), along with most of the liberal MSM. The question is: why? O'Reilly says it was because Rust-Tierny is a big liberal ex-president of the ACLU's Va. chapter, and he may have a point. A former NRA chapter president would probably have gotten more coverage, at least from most of the MSM.
The story itself is rather graphic, if one wants to report the details. This could be a reason for many outlets to pass on reporting it, as well. Disturbing news sells, though, so I wonder back to my NRA analogy. I am more convinced that the lack of reporting is somewhat slanting leftward.
The bigger picture, of course, is that this guy was caught up in a worldwide investigation. The important people to focus on are the producers of this, as well as the distributors, who may be in foreign countries. This is a story worth reporting, beyond a doubt. O'Reilly's bloviating about the relevance of a former ACLU chapter president being a buyer of this deviant material "muddies the waters," so to speak, of the bigger picture.
While it gets attention from the right, and people who disagree with the ACLU, that is not always the best way to draw attention to this story. Still, it is true that high-profile cases are what draws the public's attention. Perhaps some good may come of this, if O'Reilly succeeds in making this a "high-profile" case.
This is another time when I'm on Bill's side, and even appreciate his use of the ACLU connection to put this "on the radar" of people who care about children's civil liberties. When this "tree fell in the woods," O'Reilly heard it, and so did we.
Does anyone think this guy will give up any info on his suppliers? Will his case be followed in any other media outlets? There are many questions I have about this story. Will the ACLU defend him in court? (NOT!) What other reasons were behind the non-reporting of this story?
Let's hear it, if you have anything to add, or rebut!