Slate.com, the left-y political and pop culture website that enjoys throwing convention to the wind for the sake of an interesting coverline, in January launched a black-interest website called TheRoot.com. (A personal finance site, The Big Money, is on the way from Slate's Washington Post Co. owners.) We had high expectations for The Root, given the names attached to the thing, like Henry Louis Gates Jr., Lynette Clemetson, and Malcolm Gladwell. But ever so slowly, we've watched the site turn from a sea of well-informed opinion into a cesspool of rhetorical questions that should never be asked. It's sad, too, because we publish the black-interest website Stereohyped, which looked at The Root's arrival not as a competitor, but a welcome addition to a frighteningly small pool of black-oriented web publications.

Today, The Root let Jeff Winbush publish the article "Can Black Journalists Be Trusted to Cover Obama?" We expected this to be a Slate-esque trick: Pose a question that the article will seek to disprove. (On Slate.com right now is the coverline "I'm Stockpiling Cheap Gasoline in My Garage. Am I an Idiot?" The article answers, "No.")

Instead, in trying to argue that the white journalists who are criticizing their black colleagues for not being impartial are fools, Winbush outs himself as a completely biased black journalist.

The debate over impartiality hit its apex with last month's UNITY Journalists of Color convention in Chicago, which Barack Obama spoke at. When Obama took the stage, there was a standing ovation; reporters were later seen snagging autographs and snapping pictures with the candidate. This, cried critics, was evidence that a room full of black journalists weren't reporting on Obama so much as celebrating him.

Winbush, then, accurately assesses one discrepancy: White journalists, who make up most of the media, often clamor to get next to John McCain or (once upon a time) President Bush. The entire premise of the White House Correspondents Dinner is to hob nob with (mostly white) elected officials, including the president. Should white journalists, then, be criticized for their enthusiasm of white candidates?

Maybe. But Winbush failed to make that argument. (He also failed to explain white journalists' enthusiasm for Obama, a black candidate.) That's because he was too busy admitting that, as a black journalist, he's always going to treat black candidates differently.

I, for one, am not giving up anything to meet [National Public Radio Ombudsman Alicia C.] Shepard's arbitrary standards of what makes a good journalist. Too many people gave up too much blood to get me the rights I enjoy today.

If my white colleagues are confused as to where my allegiances are, let me make it clear for them: I am a human being first, a black man second and journalist last. Dead last. It's not even remotely a close call.

Journalism is what I do. Black is what I am.

There is no such thing as pure objectivity. Because of who I am, I look out for and protect the interests of African Americans. I'm always on guard for inaccurate and racist representations in the mainstream media. The news business remains one of the least diverse institutions in America—despite commentator Pat Buchanan's ridiculous fear of journalists of color plotting to squeeze out white reporters.

Kudos to Winbush for keeping an eye out for black interests and racist representations in the media. That's his job as a journalist, and as a human being. It's also the job of his white counterparts. It's sort of what journalists are charged with doing.

But in this single article, Winbush has openly admitted he's going to provide a different type of coverage for the Obamas of the world. And he responded his own question — "Can Black Journalists Be Trusted to Cover Obama?" — with the wrong answer.

[The Root]