Who's going to sue over the fact that such bias constitutes an illegal campaign contribution?
Nobody, but that contribution is enormous.
There is no word whatsoever of this event in my local Sunday newspaper (no surprise, as it is wholly owned by the New York Times).
As an aside, their feature front page article today is an entire page (five-column spread) on the 911 Ommission hearings. But, not a single word about the bombshell Ashcroft testimony (he's not even mentioned), the "wall" memo, the "post-millenium" memo, or Jamie Gorelick and her refusal to resign and testify. On the other hand, blame is heavily troweled on the Bush Administration and "confusion" within the CIA and FBI. But, the Clinton Administration is credited with heroically trying to get bin Laden despite all the obstacles (specifics unnamed). A large bloc of space was breathlessly given to the Clarke testimony and his damnation of President Bush's lack of concern over the terror threat. Oh, and lots on the August 8th PDB Memo, with repeat after repeat of the full title.
This isn't just lame writing, it's criminal. People reading our paper are being denied the facts and fed crap. How can citizens make any kind of a valid judgment when they are not getting all the facts but instead get a cleverly crafted web of innuendos, lies and false conclusions?