Now here is an interesting one written by ABDON M. PALLASCH.
Is this truly a "hit piece" as Walsh previously claimed?
The biggest problem with this article is that the Headline doesn't match up. The Headline says, "Judge Scolds Rep. Joe Walsh, Orders Him to Prove He Doesn't Owe Child Support." However, that is clearly not what the Judge ordered, as the article goes on to state that, "Vega did issue a “rule to show cause” — which means Walsh has to tell the court why he shouldn’t be held in contempt for falling so far behind in child support over the past five years."
Having to prove that Walsh does not owe child support versus having to show why he hasn't paid child support he ALREADY OWES are two different things. It sounds like the real story here is that Walsh was under a court order to pay child support already. That means that there was already a finding that he owes the support and disobeyed a lawful court order.
If there is one thing the Sun-Times hates more than the Daley family, it is a republican. Did this reporters lack of understanding of the court proceedings actually make Walsh look not as bad as he really is?
Further, consider this: Do the snarky comments about Walsh's positions as a member of the tea party show bias against the right on the part of this reporter?
Is this article biased, balanced or made-up lies?
No comments:
Post a Comment