The liberal media establishment is at it again. For years, they have been carrying water for liberal Democrats. Today’s hit piece on Insight in The Washington Post is another case in point.

Howard Kurtz’s “Media Notes” column deals with our recent story about the Hillary Clinton camp’s role in investigating Barack Obama’s education as a young boy in an Indonesian Madrassa. Kurtz claims our story is “thinly sourced” and cites “only unnamed sources.” He further quotes officials from the Obama and Clinton camps, attacking the story as false. Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said, “It’s an obvious right-wing hit job by a Moonie publication that was designed to attack Senator Clinton and Senator Obama at the same time.” Kurtz went on to say that “Insight, like The Washington Times, is owned by a company controlled by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.” Finally, Kurtz writes, “No one answered the phone at Insight’s office yesterday and its editor did not respond to an e-mail request for comment”—the impression being that somehow we at Insight were reluctant to discuss and defend the story. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Insight’s story was not thinly sourced. Our reporter’s sources close to the Clinton opposition research war room confirm the truth of the story. The Clinton camp’s denial has as much credibility as the “I never had sex with that woman” statement. But Kurtz ran with their statement as if it were credible. Moreover, the accusation that the story is flawed because it is based on unnamed sources is laughable. Most major investigative stories published in this city are based wholly or in part on anonymous sources. Just ask Bob Woodward. Many of The Post’s scoops against the Bush administration rely on anonymous sources.

Both Wolfson and Kurtz raise the issue of Insight being owned by the Unification Church. This is not only irrelevant, but bigoted and, unfortunately, consistent with The Post’s 25-year attempt to discredit if not destroy the one major opposition print publication in their market. It is a form of religious bigotry that tries to smear our credibility by implying that we are owned by religious zealots. And hence, our reporting should not be taken seriously. As Kurtz knows, the truth and veracity of our reporting is what is relevant. We at Insight developed our publication concept, gained support of the Board of Directors, and have run with it ever since, being selected as the top conservative magazine by Rolling Stone in just our first year. So what’s the point in mentioning religion when referencing a relevant and credible secular publication, except as an underhanded ploy to try to marginalize us?

And here is the larger issue: The New Media—including Insight—is surging forward in readership, influence and clout (that’s why our story was picked up by FOX News and talk radio). We provide hard-hitting, well-sourced and aggressive reporting—just as serious and fearless journalists of old used to do. How alone are we, in today’s media conglomerate world? The Washington Post should ask itself, does it wish to have serious journalists aggressively following up on our ground-breaking story or does it wish to carry water and curry favor for ambitious and aggressive politicians, and attack its competition rather than report?

Prior to our story being published, we contacted the Obama camp for comment. They had none…and were petrified about the story. Only when FOX and several national radio talk show hosts jumped on the story, did they issue their denials. We stung the Obama people by doing what journalists should do: follow the truth, no matter where it leads. Insight reports on political intelligence without partisanship. We have run countless stories embarrassing and damaging to President Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. We have few friends in the White House—and that’s exactly the way we like it.

Finally, let’s examine Kurtz’s claim that he tried to phone and e-mail the editors, but received no response. First, he called on a Sunday when there is nobody in the Insight office and did not leave a phone message, so no one can verify whether he really called or not. We learned on Monday that he did send an e-mail on Sunday afternoon, the day before his story went to print. This was not a genuine effort to get a real comment from us. He was simply covering himself before publishing his hit piece. This is precisely the kind of irresponsible  journalistic practices that we teach our interns not to do.