Not a Story, Or a Damaging Story?

Melanie Phillips, a prominent and respected British writer, notes that Barack Obama has been less than forthcoming about some of the details of his past, particularly those centered around his early religious allegiances.

If the sources she cites -- including academic Daniel Pipes -- are in error, it would be good to know. There's no place in the campaign for weird, scurrilous rumors designed simply to appeal to groundless fears and latent bigotry. But if the reports are true, the American people are entitled also to that information, so that they can decide what (if anything) they make of it.

But there's no getting around the fact that people like Phillips and Pipes are serious, reputable, and responsible. These aren't just crazy internet denizens making it up as they go along, and it strikes me that some credible, truly independent reporting (to the extent it still exists) should be in order.

The problem, of course, is that the MSM has shown itself to be so completely in the tank for Barack that it's impossible at this point to know whether they're not covering certain stories because they're not stories . . . or because reporting them might be politically disadvantageous for the candidate they seem to worship with such devotion.