Come on Dan, what do you expect?

It's the ACLU...the leftist's favorite organization, besides trial lawyers, and they go hand in hand.

You really didn't expect this to make main stream news in any venue, did you?

Other than BOR and Fox that is.

This whole thing is despicable, there really aren't any words to express the outrageous silence from the msm, if this were reversed, say it was the NRA...oh man, can't ya just hear it now?

The Daily Dead Fish Wrapper (aka The Oregonian) actually listed a reason for ignoring this story on their editor's blog:

We received a smattering of calls and e-mails Sunday and Monday about the lack of any coverage of the arrest of a former ACLU official 3,000 miles away. Callers mentioned they had heard about it from Bill O'Reilly of Fox News,
and they suspected a liberal bias had prevented us from publishing
anything. The thinking is that somehow the left-wing media was ignoring
the story because the suspect once was affiliated with the ACLU. (No
mention of this arrest has been provided by the Associated Press or
other wire services we rely on for national news.)

Accusations
of bias are of constant concern for journalists. It is a difficult
conversation to have. And it is all the more difficult when the
starting place is that we somehow are protecting alleged child
pornographers. But the way to address allegations of bias is to listen,
explain and when necessary give added facts and context.

One
reader who wanted coverage of the arrest of Charles Rust-Tierney, the
former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU, had this to say:

What
in the hell are you people doing at the Oregonian?? Apparently not
reporting the news to your readers like you have an obligation to do.

Beaverton reader

Executive editor Peter Bhatia
responded: Thanks for your e-mail. I'm not sure why we would have
carried this story in our paper. It happened in Virginia and has no
obvious connection to Oregon. I take it your point may be his ACLU
connection. While that may raise some irony over public statements he
made (in opposition to Internet filters on library computers), there
doesn't seem to be enough there to warrant inclusion in our limited
space. There are much more important and relevant stories for our
readers.

Protecting the ACLU is definitely something that is important to the DFW, though,

Isn't this the sort of thing the ACLU'ers out there believe is OK to do?  Isn't that why they support the removal of all prohibitions from anything that would limit a person's "Free Expression"?  Liberals are just humans being human.  No need for a Society based on a moral code.  As the Clintons proved, it's only illegal if you get caught!  And then, it depends on what the definition of is, is! 

I agree completely with Bill O'R:

This is off-the-chart disturbing, and you would think the media would be all over it. When Ted Haggard was scandalized by a male prostitute in Colorado, the media relentlessly hammered the preacher. He deserved much of it, but the coverage was everywhere.  How many of you have heard of Charles Rust-Tierney?

The worst thing media of all forms does is not to cover a story badly - too many of them do this regularly.  The worst thing is to not cover a story at all.  If this animal had been the chairman of Virginia's Republican party instead of the head of Virginia's ACLU, I suspect his arrest would have made the AP wire and the front page of Google news. Instead, they somehow seem to believe they have to protect the principals represented by the ACLU by not associating them with this horror.

Full coverage of all events and personalities right of center; selective coverage for everything left of center.  And that's wrong.