I'm goofing a bit here on the beloved, and simplistic, right-wing meme that's been popular for years now as big city daily newspapers continue to shed readers. The claim is that newspapers are shrinking because they're so darn liberal; because they've lost touch with their readers.

Forget about the Internet or the free media that's transformed our culture. Readers are canceling their subscriptions because there are too many liberal columnists! And hey, that's how the marketplace works.  

What's so ironic is that it turns out it's the WashTimes and the New York Post, two unabashedly conservative newspapers, are losing perhaps the most readers of any newspaper. Both dailies have cost their owners billions of dollars in losses. Indeed, the owners don't even pretend the papers could earn a profit in the marketplace. Instead the dailies act as subsidized conservative workfare projects, paid for in the name of giving the owners a (money-losing) media platform.

Increasingly though, the news for the WashTimes and New York Post is getting so grim that perhaps even the Rev. Sung Myung Moon and Rupert Murdoch, respectively, are starting to have second thoughts. The Post, for instance, has lost nearly 200,000 readers since 2007. And at the Moonie Times, executives were swept out of office this week in the wake of more dismal financial numbers.

If only the dailies weren't so conservative, maybe they wouldn't be losing so much money.

Previously:

Drudge, WND distort health care bill to fearmonger about cost of insurance, possibility of jail time

Legal experts debunk conservative media's claim that health reform proposals are unconstitutional

From the New York Post's November 10 editorial:

Late Saturday night, House Democrats slipped through the largest piece of legislation America's seen in decades.

If it becomes law, it would radically alter American life in countless ways -- for the worse.

[...]

The pain would kick in as soon as 2011, putting at risk any chance of economic recovery. (No wonder gold soared past $1,000 an ounce yesterday.)

And vital medical decisions would need Washington's OK, meaning they'd be based on political considerations.

All told, a huge setback for America, yet one possibly headed your way soon.

The Fox Nation is currently highlighting a November 6 Red State post titled "Another Czar Bites the Dust" that claims that "Internet Czar" (actually, special assistant to the president for science, technology, and innovation policy) Susan Crawford was the latest "body tossed under the insatiable Obama bus."

So according to the active imaginations of right-wing bloggers, the announcement that Crawford will leave the White House (sometime in January) is their latest victory in the Fox-led witch hunt against supposed "czars." The only problem with that theory is that there isn't any evidence that it's true, and there is significant evidence that it's not.

The Washington Post first reported Crawford's planned departure in an October 27 piece that undermines the right-wing media's narrative of a "czar" forced to resign amidst growing public outcry. According to the Post, "Crawford will leave her position in January to return to the University of Michigan Law School where she is a tenured professor, according to the Obama administration." The Post reported that Crawford "has been on temporary leave from the university to serve in the White House" but that her "sabbatical, which began two months after she received tenure at the University of Michigan, will end in January." The Post quoted an Obama spokesperson saying:

Susan has done an outstanding job coordinating technology policy at the National Economic Council where her expertise on issues from intellectual property to the Internet has been invaluable. ... We understand that she needs to return to her responsibilities in Ann Arbor, but we will miss having her wise counsel in the White House.

So what evidence do right-wing media have that the Post report is wrong or that the Obama administration is lying about why Crawford is leaving? Well, the Red State post that Fox Nation highlights cites two sources: a November 2 "Washington Prowler" column in The American Spectator and a November 5 post on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government blog, which in turn cites only the Spectator column. And here's what the Spectator claims:

Crawford resigned, citing the need to return to her tenured position at the University of Michigan law school, but White House sources say that when Crawford signed on to the administration, she told them the university had given her a two-year waiver before requiring a return. "There may have been miscommunication there, but we thought it was two years," says the White House source. Similar waivers -- usually two or three years -- were given to a number of academics who joined the Bush Administration in various positions back in 2001.

Crawford's exit comes at a time when some Obama Administration aides, after seeing the fallout from the resignation of Van Jones and the spotlight placed on leftists inside the administration, like Anita Dunn, wonder if it is too late to pull back many of the more radical aides now placed in a number of different cabinet level departments, including the Department of Justice, and the Energy and Education departments, and federal agencies. "They haven't done us any good on any level," says the White House aide. "And now they are just a bunch of targets on our back that we can't shake."

So that's it. A right-wing gossip column claims to have somehow obtained a statement from an anonymous "White House source" saying something that appears to contradict what the White House is telling actual journalists.

As any regular reader of the Spectator knows, however, highly improbable anonymous quotes are a staple of the Washington Prowler column. For example, "Allahpundit," a conservative writer for Michelle Malkin's Hot Air blog, has made the following observations about the reliability of the Prowler's reporting:

• "Another day, another anonymous left-wing source who knows someone who might have overheard something at a party somewhere in DC quoted in the Prowler ... A reader reminds me that the Prowler once quoted an unnamed 'Republican leadership staffer' as blaming Harry Reid for that Terri Schiavo memo that turned out to have been written by one of Mel Martinez's staffers. Read the quotes; see if they sound any more realistic to you than the quote in today's piece." [Hotair.com, 10/10/06]
• "I never know how seriously to take the Prowler ..." [Hotair.com, 9/24/06]
• "[T]his comes from the Prowler, which has an amazing knack - which I've noticed before - for squeezing hypercynical, Snidely Whiplash-ish comments out of unnamed Democrats revealing their sinister political motives. Try this one on for size ... Totally implausible? Nope. But just a tad more menacing than you'd expect a Democrat to be when talking, even anonymously, to a conservative publication like the Spectator. Believe what you like." [Hotair.com, 10/8/07]
• "Too juicy not to post, too sketchy to take very seriously. It's the Prowler, guys. Caveat emptor. ... Unusually menacing, fluidly articulate quotes from anonymous Democrats are a hallmark of Prowler items, especially those having to do with the Fairness Doctrine, but there's a grain of plausibility here." [Hotair.com, 2/16/09] 

There's another apparent problem with Fox Nation's latest tale. The Washington Post first reported Crawford's planned departure the evening of Tuesday, October 27. But Glenn Beck -- who had criticized Crawford a couple times in the past, and who was on the air that entire week -- never declared victory. He never even mentioned on Fox News that she planned to step down. In fact, a Nexis search reveals no examples of anyone on Fox News discussing Crawford's departure.

If this really was the great right-wing victory Fox Nation now wants us to believe it was, wouldn't Fox News hosts have mentioned it two weeks ago?

Back in July, after Glenn Beck called President Obama a racist, NBC News' First Read blog stated:

What's most amazing about this episode is that what Beck said isn't a fireable or even a SUSPENDABLE offense by his bosses. There was a time when outrageous rants like this would actually cost the ranters their jobs. But not anymore; if anything, it's now encouraged

Today, we found out why there were no repercussions whatsoever for Beck's comment - his boss agrees with him. As Think Progress noted, in an interview with Sky News Australia, Rupert Murdoch said of the comment:

On the racist thing, that caused a grilling. But he did make a very racist comment. Ahhh...about, you know, blacks and whites and so on, and which he said in his campaign he would be completely above. And um, that was something which perhaps shouldn't have been said about the President, but if you actually assess what he was talking about, he was right.

So there you have it. Fox News' host calls the president of the United States a racist, Fox News' owner agrees with him, and Fox News' president has a long history of appealing to racial fears and biases for political gain as a Republican strategist. But of course, Fox News is a legitimate news organization.

From Pamela Geller's November 9 Atlas Shrugs post:

Previously:

Pat Caddell? Why would anyone believe Pat Caddell?

From P. David Gaubatz's interview with Family Security Matters, published November 9 and highlighted by TPM Media:

FSM: Who is, or are, to blame that this act was able to be completed? Please name names as well as organizations.

 

DG: The people with "blood on their hands" due to this tragedy (aside from (allegedly) Maj. Hasan) are taught by his Muslim leaders and from the materials they provide to them to study. Politicians have "muzzled" full investigations and who even now label it as an isolated incident. Flat out: this is a lie and will cause more deaths for young men, women, and children. This was not an isolated incident. Maj. Hasan (allegedly) did what he was taught. Politicians, Muslims, and law enforcement are concerned about a 'backlash' against Muslims. Now is the time for a professional and legal backlash against the Muslim community and their leaders. Muslims know what materials are being taught in their mosques and they know many of the materials instruct young Muslims to kill innocent people who do not adhere to Sharia law. If Muslims do not want a backlash, then I would recommend a "house cleaning." Stack every Saudi, al Qaeda, Pakistani, Taliban, Hamas, and Muslim Brotherhood piece of material from their mosque and have a bonfire. Tell the American, Jewish, and Muslim community this hatred will no longer be allowed in their mosques.

Eighty advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred of white people." Here are his November 9 sponsors, in the order they appeared:

• Rosland Capital

• Lifestyle Lift

• A&E Television Networks (The History Channel)

• Superior Gold Group

• Rhino Records (The Ultimate Beegees)

• Goldline International, Inc.

• USfidelis

• Wholesale Direct Metals, Inc.

• American Advisors Group

• Newsmax

• Goldenwest Diamond Corporation (The Jewelry Exchange)

• FEMA (National Flood Insurance Program)

• National Review

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (boosterseat.gov)

• FightPredatoryLending.com

• IRSTaxAgreements.com

• News Corp. (The Wall Street Journal)

• ZeroWater

• Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. (Cosamin)

Big changes are afoot at The Washington Times, including the possible departure of executive editor John Solomon. TPM's Ben Frumin reported today that in a "major shakeup," three executives are leaving the right-wing newspaper, and that "two newsroom sources said they expect [Solomon] to resign" as well.

The reasoning behind the "major shakeup" may be a surprise to many. In its official announcement of the moves, the paper stated: "Today's industry conditions and the general economic downturn necessitate this team-based assessment, planning, and subsequent implementation of a plan to enable The Times to become a sustainable multimedia company in today's challenging news industry environment. ... The process will clarify the steps needed to achieve the goal of a market-based, financially sustainable media enterprise."

That's right, fiscal responsibility has finally reached The Washington Times after decades of red ink.

One has to wonder what prompted this new attention to the bottom line. A Washington Post article on the Times' 20th anniversary in 2002 reported that the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the paper's founder, had "plowed about $1.7 billion into subsidizing the Times" in its first two decades of operation. That's a lot of cheddar to make sure your "bolder, brighter" paper gets out to one-eighth as many readers as the local competition. You can buy a lot of phony attacks on President Obama's "czars" with that kind of money, but the Times has now apparently decided that such expenditures are unacceptable.

What effect will the shake-up have on the Times' editorial content? We'll have to wait and see. In a memo to the Times staff upon his hiring, Solomon discussed making the operation "more profitable"; he also mentioned the staff's "shared pride as journalists" and claimed he wanted to create a "superior print and online news product." It's unclear how successful he was at pushing the Times toward profitability, but he seems to have maintained its standing as a major purveyor of conservative misinformation.

He failed miserably with MySpace.

He launched the right-wing TheFoxNation.com claiming it was "time to say 'no' to biased media and 'yes' to fair play and free speech." Quit laughing.

He may be interested in buying Twitter.com.

He paid big bucks to settle hacking lawsuits.

Now, Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corp the parent company of Fox News, is apparently readying himself for war with Google.

Seriously.

The Guardian reports:

Rupert Murdoch says he will remove stories from Google's search index as a way to encourage people to pay for content online.

[…]

In recent months, Murdoch his lieutenants have stepped up their war of words with Google, accusing it of "kleptomania" and acting as a "parasite" for including News Corp content in its Google News pages. But asked why News Corp executives had not chosen to simply remove their websites entirely from Google's search indexes – a simple technical operation – Murdoch said just such a move was on the cards.

"I think we will, but that's when we start charging," he said. "We have it already with the Wall Street Journal. We have a wall, but it's not right to the ceiling. You can get, usually, the first paragraph from any story - but if you're not a paying subscriber to WSJ.com all you get is a paragraph and a subscription form."

The 78-year-old mogul's assertion, however, is not actually correct: users who click through to screened WSJ.com articles from Google searches are usually offered the full text of the story without any subscription block. It is only users who find their way to the story through the Wall Street Journal's website who are told they must subscribe before they can read further.

[…]

Murdoch's attitude towards the internet - which appeared to have thawed when he bought social networking site MySpace for $580m in 2005 - has stiffened more recently.

[…]

Additionally, it emerged that MySpace, which has struggled in the face of competition from Facebook in recent years, was due to fall short of its targets in a lucrative search deal with Google – a slip that could cost the site more than $100m in payments from the internet advertising giant.

Actually, it might not be that bad if Murdoch pulls News Corp content off of Google.  Think of the millions of people that would be inoculated from his... ummm "fair and balance" approach to journalism.

UPDATE: Google has responded. This Telegraph headline says it all: "Google: Rupert Murdoch Can Block Us If He Wants To."

I wrote last week about how media conservatives just aren’t that good when it comes to election analysis – in fact they pretty much suck.

This weekend Saturday Night Live did a send-up of Fox News' off-year election night coverage that is well worth a watch.  Jason Sudeikis' Glenn Beck impersonation isn't quite as good as what The Daily Show's Jon Stewart offered up last week, but it's pretty funny all the same.

On a recent conference call with shareholders and the press, Murdoch, asked about recent Fox News battle with the White House, continued to push the bogus line about a ratings spike [emphasis added]:

As far as tension with the White House, I think they've overplayed it. And it's probably been good for us in terms of ratings.

False, as we documented this week, Fox News' ratings virtually flatlined in the two weeks after the public controversy exploded.

And oh yeah, on the conference call Murdoch also lied about the dispute and what White House officials have said about Fox News:

They have said publicly that we hare absolutely fair in our reporting of the White House. They just don't like one or two of our commentators.

At least we know where the misinformation at Fox News starts -- at the top.

From a November 8 post on BigGovernment.com

Who is Steve Max: Ward Churchill Meets Rahm Emanuel

by Andrew Marcus

From the archives of the extreme progressive left comes this little ditty written in 2001 by SDS founding member, and DSA Vice Chair, Steve Max.

In November 2001, just 8 weeks after the devastating terrorist attacks on New York and DC, Steve Max delivered a speech to the progressive "USAction Delegation Assembly", on the topic of taking advantage of the new crisis as an opportunity to advance a progressive agenda.

The speech reads like Ward "little Eichmanns" Churchill and Rahm "never let a good crisis go to waste" Emanuel, all rolled up into one offensive Progressive rant.

Why does any of this matter? Because Steve Max, as a co-founder of Citizen Action (which later became USAction) and the Midwest Academy, is one of the people who likely trained SEIU's Andy Stern, Rahm Emanuel, and even President Bracak Obama, in the Alinsky method of organizing toward revolution.

[...]

President Barack Obama is deeply connected  to Steve Max's Midwest (SDS-DSA) Academy and Citizen Action. Back in his Chicago days, then State Senator Obama was asked to deliver the Key Note address a fund-raising dinner for their sister organization, Citizen Action (Co-founder of the ACORN Working Families Party).

The New York Times has a good article spelling out the obvious problems with Newsweek's decision to team up with the American Petroleum Institute for a forum titled "Climate and Energy Policy: Moving?"

Here's the situation in a nutshell: API is paying Newsweek, in exchange for which API president Jack Gerard gets to be the featured participant in a Newsweek forum moderated by Newsweek columnist Howard Fineman.  Newsweek says there's nothing wrong with the arrangement, because it is "transparent":

"There's absolutely no conflict of interest, because they're not driving our editorial" content, [Newsweek director of external relations Mark] Block said. "These events are transparent. They're on the record. They're inclusive of media. They're inclusive of people that might disagree. There's no concern of appearance of impropriety because it's an open and transparent process."

That does not, strictly speaking, appear to be true.  Take a look at a "V.I.P. Invitation" email Newsweek External Relations Manager Jennifer Slattery sent out about the forum:

The panel discussion will be moderated Howard Fineman, Newsweek National-Affairs Columnist and Senior Washington Correspondent with special guest panelist Jack Gerard, President & Chief Executive Officer of American Petroleum Institute (API). Newsweek is also honored to have forum invitations currently pending confirmation with notable members of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate.

No mention of the fact that API paid for Gerard's participation in the event.  So much for "an open and transparent process."

And so much for "no concern of appearance of impropriety":

[J]ournalism and ethics experts decried the arrangement.

"You're selling access," said Edward Wasserman, Knight professor of journalism ethics at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Va. "Newsweek is using its reputation as a great news organization to convene these officeholders to talk about public policy. Then it's renting out a space at the table for one of its customers who would not be at the table if not for giving money to Newsweek."

John Watson, associate professor of communication law and journalism ethics at American University in Washington, agreed.

"You're enticing them to buy these ads to get this thing of value," Watson said.

Newsweek's claims that API's funding doesn't influence its editorial decisions are undermined by the fact that the forum features Gerard -- but doesn't include any representatives of environmental organizations.  And, it seems, Newsweek doesn't have any pans to address that exclusion:

Asked whether Newsweek planned to invite a representative from an environmental group to the upcoming event, to balance Gerard's appearance, Block said the magazine "would definitely consider that opportunity," if there were a high-profile environmentalist who might be appropriate. But he said that because members of Congress would likely also participate, time constraints might dictate against it.

Yeah, I bet they might.

And I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Newsweek happily publishes global warming deniers like George Will.  And its probably just another coincidence that Will's column relies on the work of the American Enterprise Institute, which gets funding from the likes of Exxon Mobil and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Trust.  

That's Charles Koch as in Koch Industries, which was once required to pay "the largest civil fine ever imposed on a company under any federal environmental law to resolve claims related to more than 300 oil spills from its pipelines and oil facilities in six states."  Or perhaps you know Koch Industries better as the company that got rich in part by stealing oil from Indian reservations and federal lands -- that is, from U.S. Taxpayers.  Then they used the money they stole from taxpayers -- that is, from you -- to fund right-wing think-tanks that advocate policies that would help people like Charles Koch at the expense of, well, you. (Koch Industries agreed to pay $25 million in penalties for stealing all that oil.)

Anyway, I'm sure that's all just coincidence.

Oh, and it's probably also a coincidence that Newsweek is owned by the Washington Post Company, and that the Post got caught earlier this year trying to sell off access to its reporters to corporate sponsors.

Neal Boortz: Rep. Maxine Waters is an "idiot" who "should be cleaning restrooms"

Ann Coulter: Without affirmative action, Rep. Waters couldn't get a job "that didn't involve wearing a paper hat"

And, of course, Don Imus famously referred to Gwen Ifill as a "cleaning lady"

Why is it that when some conservatives think of successful African American women, these are the first things that pop into their minds?

Here's a question Washington Post reporter Perry Bacon was asked during today's online Q&A:

Richmond, Va.: Watching ABC this morning and having them highlight things in the bill, I see that this is far from socialism. It seems to be an attempt at fairness in the insurance market. Can we have an honest debate now or will the tea party corporate warriors still rule the airways?

And here's Bacon's response:

Perry Bacon Jr.: I guess it depends on the meaning of socialism. The Tea Party people are alive and well and will continue to be a major force in our politics. Not sure if the Senate Republicans will show up at a rally with them like the House guys, but they will be involved.

So Bacon's questioner notes that right-wing cries of socialism are over-heated, and Bacon rushes to defend them.  Maybe this is what Washington Post executive editor Marcus Brauchli meant when he said the Post should be more responsive to conservatives.

The Washington Post's Michael Shear over-reads last weeks elections:

If he [President Obama] needed any reminder of how difficult that remains, the week began with a blunt message for his party from voters, who resoundingly rejected two Democratic candidates for governor and sent a shock through members of Congress who are up for reelection next year.

Senior Obama aides sought to minimize the power of that message but were largely out-shouted by a chorus of pundits and even some Democrats on Capitol Hill who warned that the results do not portend good things for Obama and his party next year.

Exit polls showing that people who voted in last week's elections generally did not consider them to be referendums on Obama?  Not mentioned.  

The Democrats' 2-0 record in last week's Congressional special elections?  Not mentioned.

From Hudnall's November 9 BigHollywood.com post:

by James Hudnall

I have a confession to make. I hate politics. That's why I write about it, because I enjoy making fun of it. And one of the reasons I write for Big Hollywood is I am sick of other people's politics being jammed down my throat through alleged "entertainment."

So for many years I found escape on TV in the Food Network, because aside from the fact I like food and cooking, I loved that it was a politics-free zone. There was no angry Bush bashing, no digs at Cheney and Rumsfeld. No moral equivalency. No screaming about the 2000 election. It was all about the joy of food and cooking and how it brings people together.

In a world so divided, it was a reminder that we can all get along if we can find some common ground.

I'm sure the chefs and personalities on the network have their political views. The fact that so many of them are based in New York would suggest most lean Democrat. But the beauty of that network is never, ever does anyone let on where their politics lie. We don't need to know who they voted for because that has nothing to do with food. It's not relevant. And that made it a refreshing place to be.

Notice I say "made." Someone has sullied the garden and brought their politics in, and turned a popular show into an infomercial for one of her causes.

Michelle Obama, perhaps jealous of her husband's constant face time on TV, has decided to start injecting herself in other people's shows. First it was the Biggest Loser which aired the night Dems got their teeth kicked in in some major races. (irony ahoy)

Now she's about to appear on the Food Network. And not just any show, the most popular show. Iron Chef America. And not just appear, nope. I'll let the NY Times explain it.

In a collision of politics, cooking and popular culture, Michelle Obama will reveal the secret ingredient that the chefs must use in their televised cook-off: anything that grows in the White House garden (no further spoilers here, though). Mrs. Obama will also talk about her crusade to reduce childhood obesity through better school lunches, community gardens, farmers' markets and exercise, which around the White House has the working title Healthy Kids Initiative.

The first lady's cameo on "Iron Chef" is the latest example of her willingness to get her message across to the public in ways few of her predecessors would have considered.

Now, I can understand how she might want to be first ladylike and push her pet agenda, just as previous first ladies tackled such things as literacy and drug abuse. I also can't blame the Food Network for wanting to have the First Lady on their show. It has to be good for ratings (or maybe it would have been six months ago, this airs in January. Oops!). The problem is, the Food Network is the last place I expected to see scolds talking about taking away snack [sic] from kids and making them broccoli. This is the place that celebrates pork fat, butter and sugar. It's a haven from the Food Nazis who want us all to live on a diet of rice cakes and rain water.

The Obama Administration has been hostile to agriculture. From refusing to send water to California's San Joaquin valley farmers to bills that would limit your rights as a home gardener. This while they are promoting "organic gardening."

The Obamas love to stick their face everywhere, I'm sure the Cartoon Network and the Fishing Channel are next. The one place we probably won't see them is the Military Channel. He'll probably need more time to think about that.

Anyway, as a citizen I am lodging my protest. I don't want the Food Network politicized. I don't want the Obama administration starting to dictate diets to people there. What's next, they put Paula Dean on a soy and rice milk diet? Enough!

In its Sunday magazine, the Times offered up a very cushy, flattering profile of conservative activist and former GOP House majority leader, Dick Armey. Readers learn that Armey, now the point person for FreedomWorks, which helped whip up the health care mini-mobs this summer, is a deep thinker and an all-round good guy.

But I couldn't help notice two instances early on the in the piece when the Times played quite dumb while tiptoeing around embarrassing facts about Armey and his FreedomWorks organization. Here's the first one [emphasis added]:

Now, in his role with FreedomWorks, which helped stage a big march on Washington in mid-September, he is again at the center of the opposition...The stated purpose of the march was to “defend” liberty and reduce the size of the federal government. (According to an unofficial estimate by a city official, the march drew between 60,000 and 75,000 people; organizers claimed a much higher number.)

"A much higher number"? I suppose that's one way of putting it, if you're trying to go out of your way to be nice to Armey and FreedomWorks. Because trust me, the facts are no nearly so benign.

The truth is that yes, the official estimate of the Sept. 12. rally was between 60,000 and 75.000. But in terms of what FreedomWorks organizers claimed, it wasn't "much higher." It was more than 20 times higher. Approximately 70,000 showed up in D.C. to protest Obama, yet that day a FreedomWorks leader went on stage and claimed there were 1.5 million people protesting in the streets. That wildly inflated number was then bumped up to 2 million. Both numbers were completely manufactured; just made-up nonsense.

In other words, Armey's FreedomWorks helped organize an anti-Obama rally. Then on the day of the protest FreedomWorks spread wild lies about the size of the crowd, but the Times didn't think that fact was worth mentioning in its profile of FreedomWorks leader Armey. And of course, the Times didn't think it was worth asking Armey about why his org lied about the rally.

Here's the other rather egregious example from the Times profile:

Armey himself has been traveling the country in support of favored political candidates, not all of them running on the Republican line. In a special election in upstate New York, he backed a third-party candidate for Congress over a Republican whom he did not consider sufficiently conservative on economic matters.

Here's what Times readers were never told about the Upstate New York race: Armey's candidate lost.

The Armey piece ran on Sunday. The Upstate N.Y. election was five days earlier on Tuesday. But in its profile of Armey and FreedomWorks, which went all in on the N.Y., race, the Times never tells reader that Armey's guy lost; that Armey's candidate actually helped flip an historically Republican district to the Democrats.

How would the Times' Armey puff piece have changed if the newspaper had been upfront about the Sept. 12 rally and the botched Congressional race? I suspect if readers knew that Armey's FreedomWorks brazenly lied about the protest crowd, many of them would say to themselves, 'Gee, this guy's a little nuts.'

And if readers knew FreedomWorks had been embarrassed in the Upstate New York race, they'd probably say to themselves, 'Gee, this guy isn't very effective.' Which, I suppose, is probably why both facts were left out of the Times article.

From Neal Boortz's Twitter feed: