No Evidence That Trump Tower Was Wiretapped?

In a joint news conference, the ranking Democrat and the ranking Republican of the House Intelligence Committee said that there is "no evidence" for Trump's claim that Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped. The problem with that is the following photo from the print edition of the New York Times on the very day Trump was inaugurated.

Click on Image to Enlarge or See Reference Below

Obviously, the "Times" had some reliable source for this story.  A story that starts out by saying "American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications".  A statement like that with "agencies" in the plural shows that the wiretapping activities were widespread and had to have included Trump Tower. Also, it's a little hard to believe that Obama had no knowledge of this activity.

Further, the article states that "It is not clear if the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump's campaign, or Mr. Trump himself".  Maybe the Intelligence Committee should be asking these New York Times writers about this story before making their "no evidence" declaration?

References:

Photo Source: Did the New York Times Contradict Their 20 January 2017 Report About Wiretapping? http://www.snopes.com/nytimes-wiretap-articles/

House intelligence chiefs say 'no evidence' Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped but they'll grill FBI chief in public on explosive claims – and DOJ faces subpoenas over whether it asked for permission to snoop: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4316876/No-evidence-Obama-Trump-Tower-wiretapped.html

New York Times Shocker: Marco Rubio Is A Murderer!

Recently, the New York Times, after talking with Marco Rubio's pest control person, discovered that Marco authorized the execution of untold numbers of Palmetto bugs (roaches) in and around his Florida home. Horror of horrors! Marco the murderer!  Marco the killer!

Of course, this is just a tongue-in-cheek piece of fiction on my part.  But, it could very well have happened with the way that the New York Times has been treating Rubio in print these days.

Two weeks in a row, Marco has been the target of a hit piece by this nation's best known and liberal newspaper.

First, there was the story of the "lead foot" Rubio's with 17 traffic violations between them in the last 10 years. Four of which were by Marco and 13 by his more "criminal" wife. Unfortunately, the "Times" could catch him using his influence to fix those tickets but, the fact that he even got them was criminal enough.  By contrast, Hillary is a saint when it comes to driving. Maybe, because, she hasn't driven a car since 1996, and, my guess is that she thinks a chauffeur, who opens the door for her, comes standard on all cars.

Then, the "Times" went after him for his management of his expenses.  A crime that all of us are probably guilty of.

But, they found his truly "capital felony" was the purchase of a sport fishing boat for $80,000 which the "Times" called a speed boat as to infer that Rubio was racing around Florida harbors; tipping over other boats in his wake with his lead hand on the gas.  Obviously, if you have a lead foot on land, you're sure to have one on the water.  The truth is  that he modestly lavished himself with a recreational boat after receiving an $800,000 advance to write about his life growing up as a son of Cuban immigrants. Has anyone watched 'Dexter'?  I think if a murdering blood splatter specialist working for Miami-Dade can afford a Rubio-like boat named the "Slice of Life" then, too, should a U.S. Senator by the name of Rubio.  Of course, this is not to imply that Rubio, like Dexter, is a murderer who dumps Palmetto bug bodies off the coast of  Florida.

I think Rubio should wear those NYT stories as badges of honor.  It shows he is a threat to liberals as being the next President.  Even though, the stories themselves are trivial when compared to others who have run for President.  But, don't underestimate the tenacity of the "Times" to catch Rubio doing something bigger.  Right now, they probably have operatives counting the number of flushes in his home.  Seeing if he or his wife calls for paper or plastic when they're checking out at the grocery store, or if he environmentally drinks tap water or selfishly drinks bottled water.  Even, worst yet, does he pickup after his dog poops. And, the dog being another mystery that media is infatuated with. Maybe he stole it? Is it still alive? These are deep questions that need to be asked and answered.

So much to do and so little time before Rubio might get the nomination as the GOP presidential candidate.

References:

Rubio and wife received 17 traffic tickets: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2015/06/08/ny-times-reporter-rubio-traffic-ticket-story-why-people-dont-run

Rubio's 'luxury speedboat' is a fishing boat - POLITICO: https://www.google.com/search?q=rubio+speed+boat&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

NYT: Marco Rubio Is Totally Irresponsible Because He Bought a Fishing Boat in Florida:  http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/06/09/nyt-the-rubios-were-totally-broke-when-they-were-younger-guys-n2010147

The 'Slice of Life': Dexter's Boat:  http://dexter.wikia.com/wiki/The_Slice_of_Life

Hillary Clinton Hasn't Driven a Car Since 1996 - The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/01/hillary-clinton-hasnt-driven-a-car-since-1996/283375/

Who Is the Mystery Dog in Sen. Marco Rubio's House?: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-nickum/mystery-dog-marco-rubio_b_2686769.html

The Jill Abramson Firing: A Story of Income Inequality and Gender Bias?

America's newspapers, especially those that have the most liberal editorial staff, love to write stories and opinion pieces which expose all of the nation's social ills.  This year was no exception when those same liberal news organizations, in following the Obama's politically motivated lead, decided to write an onslaught of stories regarding widespread gender bias and income inequality for women in this country.  So, its almost laughably ironic that the queen of all liberal newspapers, the New York Times (aka the Grey Lady), is ensnared in a controversy of its own gender bias and income inequality with the firing of its first-ever female Executive Editor, Jill Abramson.

Rumors are flying all over the place as to why she was fired.  The New Yorker claims she was terminated for asking to be paid equal to that of her predecessor, Bill Keller.  There's also the rumor that she was let go for stating that this White House is the most secretive she has ever seen in her many years of covering Presidents.  Then, too, feminists believe that there is proof of gender bias because it was reported by The New Yorker that she was ousted for being too "pushy" and "bossy"; two adjectives that would never be used to describe a male.  Lastly, fuel was added to the fire when she was quickly replaced by a man.

Now, I can't address issues of her management style because only the people who worked for her can; and, that has to be a consensus of many and not one or two disgruntled personnel.  Nor do I have any inside track on whether or not her White House comment was the reason for her dismissal, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't partially true.  What I can address is this "equal pay for equal work" nonsense that appears to be swirling around her dismissal and which has been continually stirred up by the President and the Democrats as a means of garnering votes this coming Fall.

The concept of "equal pay for equal work" is too simplistic. It assumes that everybody will do a given job equally.  But, that is a fantasy; especially when you are talking about Abramson's Executive Editor's position at the New York Times which entails deciding what stories will be written and in what order or priority they will be given.  The concept of equal pay completely ignores self initiative and achievement, performance on the job, education and background, seniority, and so many things that determine what someone should be paid in our merit based system of pay.

First of all, there's the experience levels of Bill Keller versus Jill Abramson.  Keller was the "Times" Executive Editor for 8 years before he gave notice that he wanted to leave in 2011.  He apparently was well liked.  Jill was only on the job for 3 years; ultimately ending in a firing.  Keller was also a Pulitzer Prize winner.  So, in essence, Keller should have been paid more for his years of experience and background. That brings us to the reason why American female journalists, in general, are paid less.

According to a recently released study titled "The American Journalist in the digital Age: Key Findings," women journalists are only paid 82% of what their male counterparts are paid; and this is about the same as the general working population of women.  Now, as that report aptly points out, the disparity between men and women is only 2.4% for journalists working less than five years.  But, with 15 to 20 years of work experience, women are paid 21.4% less than men.  While the report gives no direct reason for this, another section titled "Female Journalists Tend To Leave Profession Earlier" indirectly explains the very reason for the increasing pay disparity. Simply, by leaving their profession early, they don't build up their salaries through years of compounding raises. Thus, when averaged in the aggregate, women are paid less.

Lastly, there's the issue of Abramson being replaced by a man.  This is simply ridiculous.  What this implies is that, once a woman is elevated to high level position, all successors should necessarily be  women.  Its like saying, Hillary Clinton should not be President because when Obama leaves he should be replaced by another Black.
 
References:

New Yorker: Why Jill Abramson Was Fired: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2014/05/why-jill-abramson-was-fired.html

Jill Abramson: 'This is the most secretive White House I have ever dealt with': http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/01/jill-abramson-this-is-the-most-secretive-white-house-181742.html

Did the NY Times Fire Jill Abramson For Being 'Bossy'?: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ruchikatulshyan/2014/05/14/did-the-ny-times-fire-jill-abramson-for-being-pushy/

The American Journalist in the digital Age: Key Findings: http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/05/2013-american-journalist-key-findings.pdf

Equal Pay Day Theatrics: A Comedy Or A Tragedy: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2014/04/national-equal-pay-day-theatrics.html

Update: Will High Oil Prices Drive Hybrid and Electric Car Sales?

In my blog entry of Tuesday, titled Will High Oil Prices Drive Hybrid and Electric Car Sales? , I wrote this: "Most people would rather buy a less expensive, but fairly fuel efficient, non-hybrid. In fact, when costs are compared over any period of time, hybrids always lose to highly fuel efficient conventional vehicles. Obviously, the people buying hybrids aren't very good at math."

Well, its not often that the New York Times is in concert with this blog. But, on the topic of cost effectiveness of hybrids and electrics, we're in sync. A day after I published the aforementioned entry, the Times published a news article titled: Payoff for Efficient Cars Takes Years. In that commentary, the author noted that it would literally take 27 years for a Chevy Volt purchaser to breakeven on fuel savings versus the cost of buying and operating Chevy's gasoline powered cousin of the Volt: the Chevy Cruze. As part of that same article, the Times published this chart showing the breakeven points of many hybrids and electrics as compared to their cheaper gasoline powered siblings.

Like most everything green, the cost benefits are totally out the window.

Obama Is Hammered In A NYT/CBS Poll

Yesterday's top story in the "Drudge Report" showed a picture of President Obama with his back to the camera and a two-line headline that read: "Pain in the Pump" and "44 down to 41". For those who "clicked" to read the story behind the headlines, they found that, in the most recent New York Times/CBS poll, President Obama's approval rating sunk to 41%; a new low for his Presidency. At the same time, his disapproval rating reached a new high.

What is amazing about these numbers is that they were even published at all by these two, very left-leaning, media outlets. In the past, other polling operations -- like Gallup and Rasmussen -- have had the President's approval down to 41%; and, like some kind of White Knights, the New York Times and CBS would band together to refute the 41% polling by publishing their own data which almost always showed Obama near or above 50%. So, why such a low approval rating now when both Rasmussen and Gallup actually have Obama at 49%? It's just the opposite of what has happened between these polling operations in the past. This makes no sense.

Being the skeptic that I am about all politics, I smell a rat. While I have no proof of this, it just may be that the New York Times and CBS are trying to jolt Democrats into rallying around the President with both cash and support. It's early enough that this low approval rating won't actually hurt the President's reelection bid; assuming that the NYT/CBS polling in the months to come return Obama to the his near 50% level. And, it comes at a time when the President's fund raising is somewhat lagging. Of course, I just might be all wet.

Another Worthless Frank Rich Hit Job

According to Frank Rich, an editorial writer for the New York Times, you are a racist if you object to ObamaCare. However, Frank apparently doesn't understand that ObamaCare is a fully color-blind system. Black or white, Hispanic or Asian, it will ultimately screw people over equally, by financial, and not racial, classes. Surely, the poorer of our society will benefit the most and, typically, these are minorities. However, the middle class and above, no matter what their race, will suffer greatly under the heavy hand of ObamaCare. They will suffer financially in higher premiums, taxes, and what they will have to pay for consumer products and, most importantly, in the quality of care that they receive. Those that are complaining know this to be true and they absolutely know where ObamaCare is taking this country. If they are mostly white, then its because whites make up 75% of our society.

However, what Frank doesn't seem to understand is that Obama had a near 70% approval rating when he took office and, at that same time, more than 65% of Americans wanted "change" to our health care system. Obviously, now, the tables have turned with most people viewing both him and his health care reform unfavorably. It's hard to believe that 30 to 40% of Americans suddenly became racists because they now hate ObamaCare. I think Frank would be better served looking at the true rationale for anger against ObamaCare and not quickly blame racial motives. Like Janeane Garofalo against the Tea Party movement, Frank is using race as an argument because he has no other rational way to defend this health care legislation. As I have stated before, racism is always the easy out when no one buys their B.S. But, like crying wolf, I think America is getting up to "here" with it. To Frank and other Democrats who constantly play the race card, I have to say that using race in this way is, in itself, racist.

The ACORN and Van Jones Stories Exposes a Real Media Bias

In a recent poll taken by Pew Research, the mainstream media managed to achieve new lows in public trust.

On accuracy in reporting, the opinion of our media fell to an unbelievable 29%.

On the fairness in dealing with all sides of an issue, the number was even more telling with only 18% of those being interviewed giving a favorable rating to the media.

(Click to the Chart from Pew's Website)

I find it interesting that this poll came out at nearly the same time when almost every news agency failed to at least mention the brewing controversy over ACORN. Even before that, the mainstream media completely ignored the background bio on that Obama radical, Van Jones. Instead, the only major media source to expose those facts was Fox News.

In effect, both of these stories had clear ties to Barack Obama and, under normal circumstances, would have been an explosive, paper-selling, front-page revelation. But, obviously, profits, viewership and subscription sales are less important than maintaining this President's image. And, this is why our American media isn't to be trusted with giving us the news.

The contrast in how the media treated George W. Bush and how they are now handling Barack Obama couldn't be clearer. If Bush was to have been seen as having the same kind of ties to someone like Van Jones or to a group like ACORN, you had to know that the New York Times would have spared no ink on those topics. For them, they would have figuratively used it as a means of "serial" killing the Bush Presidency with daily stories on the topic.

I am quite sure that there are thousands, if not millions, of Americans who are totally clueless on both the Van Jones and ACORN stories because they only read the New York Times, L.A. Times, or other biased newspapers and/or they only watch NBC, CBS, ABC, or MSNBC or CNN to get their news.

Today, the mainstream newspapers are near bankruptcy in almost every major city. The network news, too, is sliding in their viewership. Yet, they persist in their left-wing bias towards reporting the news. I had a high school teacher who'd often use the expression "wake up and smell the coffee" when somebody in class was acting a little dopey. Maybe our mainstream media should, before it is too late, "wake up up and smell the coffee" too. That's because, if they don't, they'll wind up in smelling soup in the soup lines and wishing they would have smelled the coffee before their businesses went completely under!


(Click to See Full Pew Research Commentary)

Amid Obama's Sinking Polls: Two Liferafts Are Thrown

Almost all of the major polls have President Obama at or below 54% in his approval rating. But, not the Time Magazine Poll nor the CBS/New York Times Poll! In their "sampling (?)" of America, Obama always seems to do quite a bit better than in all the rest.

In the world of statistics, especially in political polling, there is a term used to define data that is way off the mark and that term is "outlier". Maybe, when looking at the polling results for CBS/New York Times and for Time, we should be use the expression: "out and outright LIARS".

For some almost "mystical" reason, each of these polling operations always under-polls Republicans while over-polling Democrats and/or Independents. For example, when you look at the sample data for the latest CBS/New York Times poll, you will find that only 20 percent of the respondents were Republicans. This is an under-polling of Republicans by nearly 30 percent. This fact alone is why this poll has Obama at 58 percent (Click to See Poll Results In a PDF file format). It also explains why Obama's disapproval rate is only at 30% when most of the others are closer to 40%.

I think, by now, everyone knows that the New York Times is "the" media outlet for the Democratic Party. CBS, too, is pretty biased towards Obama and the Democrats. You only have to look at Katie Courics' bias over the years to know that to be the case. Then, of course, there's David Letterman who has never told a single Obama joke; but, instead, has constantly trashed Bush and every other Republican on the planet. And, let us never forget that his is the same media organization that allowed Dan Rather to "air" falsified "reserve" documents on George Bush.

Then, there's Time Magazine. To say that they are totally in love with Obama would be an understatement! Just look at this screen shot from this morning's Drudge Report:

Time has almost killed a complete forest of trees in reporting favorable stories about Barack. Time is part of Time-Warner organization who also brings us the always Obama, CNN news network and HBO's Obama-love-fest, the Bill Maher show.

What I find interesting is that one of the most typically left of the News Media, NBC, published a poll that showed Obama's favorability rating at only 54% and in line with most all the other polls. Maybe, there is hope, yet, for this formerly time-honored source of television news.

Anyway, its interesting that CBS, the New York Times, and Time are all losing subscribers and viewers. I think the American public has figured them out and know that they are more inclined to be more ideological and not an honest broker of the news.

Note: The first graphic is a screen-shot from the Real Clear Politics website.

Good Times and Bad

It's no big secret that the New York Times is hurting. Besides having had to lay people off over the years, the paper just recently sold off part of it's 52-story skyscraper, the New York Times Building, to try and keep itself running. Other assets are also on the chopping block (See Full Story), and, it isn't just the New York Times. Several other papers across the country are finding themselves with a seemingly endless loss of readers. But, the majority of those who are in the most trouble are those who are considered to be the most "left" of the news groups.

I think the above stock chart of the New York Times from BigCharts.com tells the story. The stock price of the New York Times hit its all-time high in 2002. Ever since then, the stock has collapsed; moving from near $55/share in 2002 to today's price of $7 and change. While some will point to the influence of the free news on the Internet as the rationale behind the "Times" loss of subscribers, I think differently. Some losses might have been due to the Internet but, that doesn't explain why some papers, like those owned by News Corp., have grown during this same time frame.

I think that the New York Times has lost readers do to it's left-wing political stance. Certainly, they've lost a lot of politically-right subscribers. But, my guess is they have lost some in the political middle who understand and don't like the bias of this newspaper. As a consequence and out of disgust, many of them went elsewhere to papers like the New York Post, USA Today, or to the Internet. Since 2002, the New York Times has literally campaigned with it's news content to make George Bush look bad. Often, in doing so, they have made this entire country look bad. They have literally exposed secret operations that have affected this nation's security in their zeal to take down Bush. Clearly, from the chart above, this tactic has hurt in their pocketbook and, as a consequence, in their stock price.

My guess is that as soon as Mr. Obama takes office, the New York Times will switch into their pre-Bush, happiness and love-with-the-Democrats mode; as in their boom days with Clinton (see the chart). The news will shift from the negativity of the last 8 years to the all's-well under Obama; even if it actually isn't. This will probably save the "Times" and stop the bleeding that they've had been suffering over the years. Believe me, no matter what Obama does, he will be unable to do any wrong in the eyes of the "Gray Lady". However, the eyes of that "Lady" have long since been suffering from "Repulicanus Glaucomatous". A term that aptly explains their blindness to anything Republican. The term Glaucomatous or Glaucoma (relative to sight) is derived from the ancient Greek "glaukos" that means "gray". Now, you really know why the "Times" should be referred to as the "Gray Lady".

A Woman Who Would Threaten Barack Obama

To me, being surrounded by a bunch of radicals and what that says about someone's character is a bigger story and issue than having a daughter who is pregnant out of wedlock. But, the national media thinks the later is the most important issue in this election. In the past, they have pretty much ignored Barack Obama's not-hardly-tangential relationships with Reverand Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Bernadine Dohrn, Rashid Khalidi, Father Pfleger, and Louis Farrakhan. Quite the cast of radicals! To top things off, when John Edwards was running for President, they completely ignored his extramarital affair and his possible love child; despite the rampant rumors about that since 2006.

Now, they are hotly and intensely focused Sarah Palin's family as a means to possibly force her to drop out of the race. It appears the left is legitimately scared of this young mother of five. They have done several front page pieces by attacking the daughter of Sarah Palin, who is pregnant out of wedlock. It is as if we have now come to the point where family members are part of the process of vetting a person qualifications for public office. Additionally, the media is questioning whether or not Sarah is a good mother because she is "leaving" her children alone while putting the office of the Vice President above them. They have even dug up a 20-year old drunk driving arrest against Sarah's husband as if it reflects on her own character. Maybe I'm wrong, but at the time that Sarah's husband was caught drinking and driving, Barack admitted to have done hard, illegal drugs.

It is obvious that the national media is out to do Barack Obama's dirty work. Over the last 4 days, both Barack and Joe Biden have "stated" that family members should be off limits during any campaign. To the voters, this looks like they are taking the high road and "protecting" Sarah Palin. But both Obama and Biden know damn well that the marketing arm of the Democratic party, our national news media, will do what it takes to destroy Sarah Palin on their behalf. So, they don't have to lift a finger of their own to do so. That's why you won't find Biden or Obama actually taking the news media or the bloggers to task over Palin. Instead, they have made their minimally-needed "off limits" comment. By doing so, they can easily bring that up anytime they are asked about the media attacks against Palin. Now, it i9s being reported that Sarah's phone number and social security number has been released by operatives in the Democratic party. This isn't just swift boating. This is organized crime by the Democrats!

Obama and the media might be well advised to worry about the treatment of Sarah Palin; whether directly by the Democrats or indirectly by the news media. There could easily be a serious backlash against him and against the news media in this country. Barack is already weak with women. Many aren't willing to forget how Hillary Clinton was treated by the Barack Campaign and his surrogates. This could shove just enough votes towards McCain/Palin to cost Obama a defeat. And, the media? They have been in trouble for years and this might just be another nail in the coffin that could soon signal their burial.

Image is a screenshot taken of the Drudge Report as of September 2, 9:40 AM. Take note of the headline comments about the New York Times.

McCain Running Against the Deomcrats and the New York Times

We all know that John McCain will be running against either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the Fall; and, whoever wins, expect their campaigns to hit John hard in speeches and in campaign advertising. You can also assume that the pro-Democratic "527" groups (special interest groups not directly affiliated with the Democratic Party) will be running ads to discredit McCain and benefit the Democrats and the Democratic Nominee. Not to be outdone, you can count on DNC (Democratic National Committee) to take their shots with negative ads against McCain and the Republicans. However, there is another pro-Democratic campaign nemesis that John McCain must contend with: The New York Times.

It appears that the New York Times is dead set on single-handedly defeating John McCain. Early on, they ran a piece about a possible affair with a female lobbyist; taking care to print the "hottest" picture of the woman that they could find. That story turned out to be both stale and without merit. As a result, the "Times" was publicly embarrassed by critics from all avenues of the news business. Even their own editor and their own ombudsman nailed them on this one (See Full Story). Undaunted, the Times has continued to pelt John McCain almost every week and sometimes twice a week on every questionable, two-bit topic and issue that they could "scrape" up.

Earlier this month, they wanted to make sure that you knew that John McCain had some prominent lobbyists as fund-raisers and implying (while never proving) that there "might" be an appearance of impropriety or, at the very least, an inconsistency with his hard stands on ethics (See Full Story). Back in February, they went after him on his age and stressed the importance of a younger running mate. Of course the true intent of that article was to "seed" a concern in the voter's minds about the fact that he would be, if elected, the oldest President ever. (See Full Story). In March, the Times thought it was important to remind you that John McCain had a bout with skin cancer. They seemed to be very concerned that people had forgotten this fact and weren't aware of the possibility that it could come back on him in the future (See Full Story). Again, in February, they went after him because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone and they attempted to imply he wasn't actually a United States citizen and, subsequently, not eligible to run for President. Of course, this was another bogus story because he was born to the family of a U.S. Naval Officer who was stationed on United States property in the Panama Canal Zone; thus, making him a U.S. citizen (See Full Story). In another story in April, they found an obscure connection to an Arizona land developer. This "developer", who received an introductory letter from John McCain, was able to gain access to the U.S. Army and was ultimately able to buy and develop some unused government land. In the tradition of the "Times" versus McCain, this story, as usual, was strong on implications and weak on facts! (See Full Story) In addition, they ran an article about John McCain's supposed temper by referencing year's old accounts. (See Full Story). And, the list goes on and on. I am sure that these "attack articles" won't stop until the polls are closed in November and, hopefully for the Times, a Democrat is elected President.

In the latest attack, they have hit John McCain on the use of his wife's company's corporate jet. By the current Federal Election Committee rules, McCain can fly on his wife's jet all day long as if it were his own. But, if you listen to the Times, the ability to do so was stopped in December when the Federal Election Committee received the "recommendation" to rule against that activity. Unfortunately for the Times and fortunately for McCain, this is still just a recommendation and has never yet been adopted as an actual rule. But the Times wants you to believe that McCain is violating an election law. A law that doesn't even exist, yet. Isn't that just "so" like the New York Times! (See Full Story).

Investigative journalism is a good thing when done fairly and accurately. However, you might ask yourself why none of the above articles by the Times have reached a point of being a "legitimate" national concern about the electability of John McCain. That's because all of these stories are either "old news" or "no news" or "petty news" or, obviously, "biased news". The New York Times is not being even-handed with John McCain. Besides going after him on a regular weekly basis, they typically do it on the front page. His competitors, by contrast, get their "licks" somewhere within the bowels of that paper. This to me clearly shows a bias towards one political party over the other. They are not just trying to report the news but they are actively trying to slant the news. I guess that's why they have lost so many readers and have been hit so hard financially (See Full Story). Maybe, just maybe, some day, the old "Grey Lady" will actually abide by the words "fit to print" that appears their motto: "All the news that is fit to print!"