Salon editor Joan Walsh gave Washington Post Ombudsman Andy Alexander some sharp criticism for writing this weekend that the paper had failed to properly cover the New Black Panther Party case, in which claims of voter intimidation by the group were dropped.

" ... right on time ... Alexander chimes in to keep the specious story alive, chiding his paper for ignoring it while valiant journalists like Fox's Megyn Kelly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh fought to bring light to the darkness," Walsh writes. "The Post's 'silence,' Alexander complains, 'prompted many readers to accuse The Post of a double standard. Royal S. Dellinger of Olney said that if the controversy had involved Bush administration Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, 'Lord, there'd have been editorials and stories, and it would go on for months.'"

But, she adds, “If he's going to chide the Post, Alexander should be criticizing its failure to debunk the story, not to hype it. In fact, the ombudsman notes that the Post actually covered the NBPP developments in three stories in 2009, but only one this year, published last week, focused on the latest right-wing firestorm. And indeed, the Post embarrassed itself in that story, but not the way Alexander implies. It was first headlined with the breathless '2008 voter-intimidation case against New Black Panthers a political bombshell,' which was later changed to '2008 voter-intimidation case against New Black Panthers riles the right,' when someone realized there was no 'political bombshell' in the trumped-up charges against Obama. (Alexander didn't mention the headline rewrite in his screed today.) Sadly, features editor Kevin Merida gave Alexander a mea culpa, terming the controversy 'significant,' and saying he wished The Post had covered it sooner. Ugh.”