HoodaThunk?

John Hinderaker over at Power Line addresses the situation – yet again – that our MSM indulges in very different direction of their reporting on the same matters dependent entirely on whether the target of their investigation is left-wing versus right-wing.

Now that his planned deficits are four times larger, does Obama’s budget contain “debt-fattening indulgences?” Has the Times denounced them? Does the Obama administration have a “credible plan to restore budget balance?” Given that Obama’s intended budgets–put aside how optimistic his numbers may be–far exceed the actual deficits during the Bush administration, is the Times still “worried that a structural deficit will push up interest rates and restrain growth as America ceaselessly borrows to steer red ink from imbalanced budgets onto future taxpayers?” If not, why not?

The post is a good one, replete with very specific examples taken from the loudest voice advocating on Obama’s behalf and leading the charge against anything Bush-related: The New York Times. As he says, that was then, this is now.

What I want and what I keep hearing my fellow Americans say they want is news reporting that reports the facts and lets us all weigh the information ourselves. That requires a news organization that provides a consistent coverage of issues and events regardless of who benefits from the information conveyed. As the Power Line article shows, the Times was fervent in their coverage of all of the budget details and in painting the spending of the Bush administration as Very Bad Things™. What I want to know is why they choose to not provide the same coverage now on Obama’s administration given that the budget and deficits are so much worse. Why, that is, except for the concept that the Times cares nothing for reporting the facts, only in making those who share their liberal agenda look good.

Go read the whole article, complete with the quotes from the Times, for the whole story.