In denying New Black Panther Malik Shabazz his name, one can assume the Washington Post would refer to Muhammed Ali only as Cassius Clay

.
10/22/10, "Dispute over New Black Panthers case causes deep divisions," Washington Post, by Jerry Markon and Krissah Thompson

• "On Election Day 2008, Maruse Heath, the leader of Philadelphia's New Black Panther Party, stood in front of a neighborhood polling place, dressed in a paramilitary uniform. "...

The Washington Post changes the name of the pivotal figure in this story, Malik Shabazz, holding a night stick below, and instead calls him his birth name, Maruse Heath (which Shabazz refers to as his "slave name," and does not use himself per Andrew Breitbart).



Other media outlets use his chosen name, and one wonders why the Washington Post would choose this moment to display 'cultural insensitivity.' Would they write a news story only using the name

• Cassius Clay for the man who changed his name to Muhammed Ali?

Why do it? The name Malik Shabazz appears on the White House visitors log on July 25, 2009 which the White House says is someone else with the same name. On the other hand,

• "The idea that an individual named Malik Shabazz had a private meeting in the White House residence in July 2009 is highly relevant" to events at that time.

• They remain silent as to who the person was despite pledges to be transparent. The administration also states they are free to withhold names for a variety of reasons.
  

The Post deliberately changed Malik Shabazz' name, did so in the first line of the piece, did not even note that he has another name and that he is better known by that name . The name Maruse Heath says nothing compared to the name Malik Shabazz but the Post censored his real name, thought you shouldn't know. Circulation is light in Saturday editions but you never know, someone might think they were getting the full story.
.
.
via Big Government