The Washington Post’s Disgraceful Record on Ruby Ridge

The Washington Post weighed in on the death of former congresswoman Helen Chenoweth today.  The fact that Chenoweth harshly criticized the feds sealed her reputation, at least with the Post.

The Post notes: “She also held hearings on ‘black helicopters,’ which militia members believed were filled with United Nations-sponsored storm troopers eager to swoop into the broken-down ranches of the rural West and impose international law. The helicopters were piloted by state wildlife officers patrolling for poachers, National Guardsmen looking for marijuana farms or military aircraft from nearby bases on training missions.”

Oh – since it was only heavily-armed National Guardsmen invading one’s land, then it was no problem? The National Guard has exempted itself from the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on warrantless searches – a fact that the Post rarely mentions.

There was no mention in the Post obit of Ruby Ridge or Randy Weaver.  Yet it may have been Chenoweth’s courage on that topic that did more to offend the Establishment than anything else.

The Washington Post published much false information fed to it by federal agents or politicians on Ruby Ridge – information that usually either exonerated the feds or smeared the feds’ victims.   In September 1995, the Post Ombudsman Geneva Overholser wrote a column whitewashing the Post for totally botching its coverage of this landmark federal abuse.   I wrote a response which the Post published a few weeks later.

The Washington Post 

September 23, 1995
HEADLINE: Ruby Ridge: The Story Was Waiting 

   In response to questions from callers about why “the media” did not focus on federal wrongdoing in the Ruby Ridge/Randy Weaver incident far earlier, Ombudsman Geneva Overholser declares: “A big part of the answer is, the media couldn’t. Law enforcement officials in this case, as in many, were virtually the only sources available” [“Ruby Ridge: Getting the Whole Story,” Sept. 10]. 

   This is ludicrous. Many publications had the story long before your paper. The real issue is why your paper chose to be spoon-fed by federal law enforcement on a story that was of great concern to millions of Americans. 

     The Weaver case — involving the death of a U.S. marshal, the killing of 14-year-old Sammy Weaver by a U.S. marshal and the killing of Vicki Weaver by an FBI sniper as Weaver stood on the doorstep of her Idaho cabin holding her 10-month-old baby — has probably spurred as much distrust of Washington as the Waco debacle. 

   In October 1993, Edward Lodge, the chief federal judge in the state of Idaho, issued a 17-page statement detailing federal abuses during the case. The trial transcripts clearly showed that the U.S. marshals had repeatedly changed their version of events, that FBI officials contradicted themselves and that key evidence had been tampered with or destroyed. Several competent and credible defense attorneys were involved in the case; one of them, David Nevin, wrote an excellent op-ed piece for your paper on July 15, 1993. Yet the observations of the defense attorneys seemed to vanish from your paper’s collective memory. 

   Consider how the story was covered in other publications: 

   From the beginning of the incident, the Idaho Statesman and Spokane Spokesman Review provided excellent coverage of the details of federal misconduct in this case. Reason Magazine, in August 1993, published a long article on Ruby Ridge (later reprinted by the Sacramento Bee) by Alan Bock, a columnist for the Orange County Register and author of the new book “Ambush at Ruby Ridge.” On Nov. 25, 1993, the New York Times ran a damning 2,700-word front-page article by David Johnston headlined “FBI Shaken by Inquiry Into Idaho Siege.” The Washington Times followed a few weeks later with the first of numerous incisive articles on the Weaver case. Daniel Klaidman revealed several key elements of the coverup in his articles earlier this year for Legal Times. 

   The Wall Street Journal editorial page has published two of my own articles this year about Ruby Ridge, “No Accountability at the FBI” on Jan. 10 (which FBI Director Louis Freeh attacked in a lengthy letter published Jan. 26) and “Ruby Ridge: The Justice Department Report” on June 30. And I have also written articles on the Weaver case for Playboy, the American Spectator and the Washington Times. 

   Overholser neglects to mention that your paper’s hard-hitting series on Ruby Ridge was not published until after the Justice Department paid more than $3 million to Randy Weaver to settle his wrongful death claims against the government. Though late is better than nothing, why did your paper wait until after the government had confessed guilt before seriously investigating federal conduct. The Justice Department confidential report, with all its chilling details, had been available on the Internet (thanks to Legal Times) for more than two months before your paper chose to give it proper respect. 

   The lesson of your paper’s coverage of Ruby Ridge is not for journalists to be more deferential to law enforcement officials in the hope of getting precious nuggets of news earlier. Instead, the lesson is for reporters not to depend passively on federal officials with an interest in keeping the truth out of print. 

   — James Bovard 

   James Bovard is a Washington writer. 

***

Thanks to Claire Wolfe for the email that sparked this blog.