Things are really bad when the local newspaper covers a local story after someone else does. Such is the case of the story about a Norfolk student who was suspended for two days because she accepted an over-the-counter pain killer from another student. Alice at GOTV alerted us to this story yesterday. The story first appeared on local TV station WVEC but it took until today for the Virginian Pilot to write about it. (The WVEC site requires registration and I couldn’t locate the date of the original video since I choose not to register there.)
Why did it take at least two days for this story to be reported? Just goes to show you how stale the news in the Pilot can be.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
RAH. RAH VOTE FOR KAREN!!!!
Vivian’s blog is sorta an odd place to be getting so mad that a black woman has been appointed to the bench.
I do believe that my comments were directed primarily at the tone and content of your editorial. Secondarily, I noted that the panels did not give Karen a good rating and that my view is that the most qualified candidate, regardless of race or gender, should be selected.
I am a critic of your editorial and the selection process, not angered, just disgusted.
I think the objection was that a less qualified male was being seriously considered over several well-qualified female candidates, even though Norfolk’s judges were about to become 1 to 18 female to male. The people who complained were not anonymous. You could have found any number of people, male and female, who shared their opinion just by taking the simple step of asking the lawyers who practice in Norfolk (and not just your wife).
It’s not that “maleness and employment as a prosecutor” counted, but that several better-qualified female candidates seemed to be given short shrift. About half the lawyers in this area are female. It’s no big deal; women were accepted in the practice of law long ago. Unfortunately, throwbacks like Rerras haven’t yet gotten the word.
The lopsided number of male judges in Norfolk shows that sex discrimination is at play. It’s very, very sad that all members of the editorial board, but particularly the women editors, would not understand this, and would allow such a biased, flippant, antifactual piece to be published.
In fact, after the storm created by his “FemiNazi” comment, Rerras backed off and appointed two women to the open judgeships. So, as Marcia said, the public outcry after the appalling editorial and public fumble served to correct Rerras’ mistake.
The system worked. However, in the future, it will work just fine without the Pilot if the newspaper does not become reality-based.
By the way, Dave, still willing to defend that Thelma Drake piece of caca?
Women editors? Are there any left?
Well, Margaret Edds, but she lives in Richmond. Does Lynn Fiegenbaum sit in on these decisions? Maybe that’s the problem. How can you exclude half your readership and still remain objective and accountable?
Perhaps, former Bush speech writers do not express the opinions of the majority of the local citizens. That certainly was true on the judicial appointment issue.