Topic: WorldNetDaily
Earlier this year, WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh wrote articles about a homeschooling family who filed a lawsuit against a law enforcement agency over a search of their house after an anonymous complaint without mentioning that the law enforcement agency being sued is the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, headed by WND fave Joe Arpaio.
Unruh has done it again in a Sept. 28 WND article, while ramping up the drama in an overheated introduction:
Police cars screech to a halt outside your door, six deputies approach along with two social workers who warn they have information from an anonymous tipster and threaten that unless you allow them to enter RIGHT NOW, the armed officers will take your children away from you.
So your decision to allow the authorities to enter is completely voluntary?
That’s the determination of a federal judge who has relieved two social workers – Rhonda Cash and Jenna Cramer – of liability for their actions in a case brought by homeschooling parents John and Tiffany Loudermilk in Arizona.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that deputies Joshua Ray, Joseph Sousa, Richard Gagnon and Michael Danner had qualified immunity for their role in the 2005 confrontation with the Loudermilks, the parents of five children.
While Unruh names the deputies involved in the incident, he never names their employer or their boss. The words "Arpaio" and "Maricopa County" appear nowhere in Unruh's article.
That sort of serial omission -- coupled with his naming of the officers involved -- tells us that the refusal to mention the fact that Arpaio is involved in this case (he's listed as one of the defendants) is deliberate. WND has been sucking up to Arpaio for months by writing sycophantic articles about him and defending him against criticism.
Now, Unruh and WND are shielding him from more criticism by deliberately refusing to tell their readers that Arpaio is a key figure in an action his deputies committed against a homeschooling family.
That refusal to hold Arpaio accountable for his agency's actions is yet another piece of evidence that WND doesn't care about being a "watchdog on government," as editor Joseph Farah wants you to believe.
