Bush Not Expected to Resign From Office

I had a reader E-mail me and suggest that the bias I see in the Seattle Times might just simply be the way things are in the world. What I perceive as bias might just be the news, and right now most of the news is not good for Bush.

I agree that things could be better in Iraq, but I have never criticized the Times for simply covering a story. It is HOW they cover the story that frequently angers me.

But, there are on occasions, those stories that I DO object to being published at all. Case in point, on page A8 today, we have the story "Bush Not Expected to Dump Cheney". What in the world is the point of this story? There are a great number of things Bush is not expected to do (walk on the moon, become Secretary General of the UN, etc.).

The ONLY point of this story is to try and convey that the Bush campaign is in trouble (which it is not), and yet again criticize Cheney (as the Times did last Monday when "Fahrenheit 9/11" was referenced in a story on Cheney). The piece is filled with statements like "Detractors (who are they, Democrats?)say his political liabilities have reached the point where Bush should toss him overboard".

This story is NOTHING more than an excuse for the Seattle Times to hammer away at the Bush campaign. By repeating these messages over and over again, the Times hopes to persuade readers. It contains absolutely no news. This story is very much the exact opposite of the fluff pieces the Times has been running every day about Kerry's campaign. Both types of stories contain no real news. They are simply political ads, both for and against.

These stories have truly gotten out of hand. I invite any reader of mine who doubts this to take a look at the A sections from the last week and make up their own mind.