Never seen right wing bias in the Times...just facts.
Okay, let's take an article out of the Washington Times - a professed news article - and let's see if you can see some right-wing bias:
'Fuzzy math' could drive health bill cost higher
The official $1.1 trillion price tag for the House Democrats' health care bill excludes dozens of unfunded programs that could drive up costs when future congresses look to fund them.
Republicans said the health care bill includes two dozen programs whose funding is listed as "such sums as may be necessary." That amounts to legislative jargon, they said, for "We'll bill you later."
The list of projects ranges from the "No child left unimmunized against influenza" project to 10 programs in the Indian health care system. There are also programs to encourage people to go into nursing and to spur states to restrain medical-malpractice lawsuits.
The tactic is far from new and has been used for years by Republicans and Democrats alike. The health reform examples are just the latest of what has become known as "fuzzy math" - the sort of budgeting that has been drawing extra scrutiny as the economy sputters, federal spending balloons and deficits deepen.
Republican leaders said leaving appropriations for a later date meant lawmakers were voting blind this weekend on health reform in the House. "How can members of Congress cast informed votes on a bill when there is no way to know the true cost to the American taxpayer?" said Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, the top Republican on the House Appropriations Committee.
But Democrats said leaving spending decisions up to future congresses is standard operating procedure under both parties and is the only way to let the appropriations committees weigh priorities. They said authorizing a program doesn't mean it will get money, and they pointed to a host of programs that have never gotten off the ground because Congress has never funded them properly.
"If you're calling these fuzzy math, then every authorization bill is fuzzy math," said a Democratic aide, who requested anonymity. "It's not fuzzy math at all. It's not math. That's the way Congress works. You authorize a program, and the appropriators appropriate for it."
Until Saturday's late-night health vote, much of the criticism for fuzzy calculations has been aimed at the administration's calculation of jobs "saved or created" by the $787 billion stimulus package.
Late last month, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. seemed to stumble over the math, touting that 1 million jobs have been created so far - but immediately adding that those calculations can't be expected to be "100 percent accurate."
The official tally is 650,000 jobs saved or created by stimulus investment, but Mr. Biden said the indirect effect of the spending means the real number is much higher.
...snip...
Wash. TimesThis article is one that I pretty much grabbed at random - without doing any research at all. Just grabbed the first news article I saw.
Note that this is a "news article" and not an op-ed.
I'd say that terms like "fuzzy math" are deliberate attempts by the editors to sway the reader negatively away from the Dem-controlled Congress.
Furthermore, comments like these:
Late last month, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. seemed to stumble over the math...
tend to paint "Plugs" as being an idiot.
While I tend to agree with any assessment that depicts "Plugs" as being an idiot, I'm reasonably sure that most of the people of Delaware don't think of him that way. Say what you will, "Plugs" occupied a seat in the Senate for a very long time and managed to "stumble" his way to the Veep gig. It could be argued that stupid people don't generally make it to that level of government if they're truly stupid, but I think we've had more than a few instances where we've had idiotic Veeps in the government throughout our history.
Bottom line is, within just a few short paragraphs (the story goes on over two pages), I've pulled up two examples of what I believe the Washington Times shows its right-wing bias.
For the record, I have no problem with bias of any type because within the media - irrespective of which end of the political spectrum it favors - there will ALWAYS be bias.
To say that any one news source reports only "facts" is nothing short of astounding. Should a person continue to believe that kind of nonsense shows me that the person is either naive, delusional, or just plain uninformed.
