Even died-in-the-wool Leftists can't ignore the money

And the NYT is loosing it as fast as MEEchelle downs burgers and fries.

Now they have to realize that not all the Libs in America can keep the SS Times afloat by themselves, and they 'promise' to start doing some hard-hitting in depth background about their Chicago Jeezus.

Now, though, the general election season is on, and The Times needs to offer an aggressive look at the president’s record, policy promises and campaign operation to answer the question: Who is the real Barack Obama?

Many critics view The Times as constitutionally unable to address the election in an unbiased fashion. Like a lot of America, it basked a bit in the warm glow of Mr. Obama’s election in 2008.
Basked a bit? Dood, you heated the entire NYT building for a week off that election.

According to a study by the media scholars Stephen J. Farnsworth and S. Robert Lichter, The Times’s coverage of the president’s first year in office was significantly more favorable than its first-year coverage of three predecessors who also brought a new party to power in the White House: George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.

Writing for the periodical Politics & Policy, the authors were so struck by the findings that they wondered, “Did The Times, perhaps in response to the aggressive efforts by Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal to seize market share, decide to tilt more to the left than it had in the past?” 

SRSLY? If you slid any more to the left, you'd come full circle and be reporting from the right.

 

These are the right priorities. To date, The Times has delivered some clear-eyed coverage of the administration’s mixed record on the housing crisis, banks, the economy, Afghanistan and other issues. Now is the time to shift to a campaign coverage paradigm that compares promises with execution, sheds light on campaign operations and assesses the president’s promises for a second term.

I asked Richard Stevenson, the political editor overseeing campaign coverage, about these matters, and he offered a detailed e-mail response, noting that “we take very seriously our responsibility to report without favoritism.”

He added, “We remind ourselves every day of the need to provide readers — voters — with as much news, information and context as possible about the candidates, their records, their characters, their positions and the influences on them, including their campaign donors.” 

You DO realize, don't you Mr. Highly educated editors- that if you funneled just 5% of the wolf pack you went after Sarah Palin with, and did just a little background on your plastic candidate- that we'd have a different president right now?

Oh- wait..............