Shame on The New York Times for the bias that was so evident in last week’s front page story titled “Federal Spigot Flows as Farmers Claim Bias.” It clearly implied that even meager restitution was undeserved and we were unworthy plaintiffs, although we successfully proved racial discrimination in federal farm loan practices.
The headline was an immediate giveaway, (no pun intended) that this story intended to make a case against legally won payments to offset generations of injustice in federal farm loan practices. Then, early in the story the reporter writes, “What is more, some protested, the template for the deal-the $50,000 payouts to black farmers-had proved a magnet for fraud.” Was the purpose of this observation to challenge our hard fought case and support a different outcome? Did it aim to doubly penalize those of us the court found had been wronged — for generations?
