corrente

You'd think the Times would be wary of trying to do scandal reporting, after they butchered Whitewater so horribly, but I guess they want Dean out of the race so badly that they just can't help themselves. It's sad to see a once-great newspaper sink so low.

Anyhow, the headline of the "story" reads: "Vermont Auditors Faulted Dean Aide on '92 Contract." And then, all the way at the end of the story, we find this:

Under Vermont law, the review should have made public after 30 days. That never happened, said Elizabeth Costle, who was head of the Vermont Department of Banking, Insurance, Securities and Health Care Administration, the agency that was being audited.

"It just fell through the cracks," said Ms. Costle, who has since left Vermont government and moved to Northern Virginia. "They tried to make a big deal out of it, but the truth is that the governor had nothing to do with that. The person who dropped the ball was me."

"To make any argument that he was trying to protect them," Mr. Carson said, "is laughable."

So in the headline, we have the accusation. At the end of the story, we have the evidence against the accusation. Which information do you think will spread faster? Apparently, FUX isn't the only "fair and balanced" "news" organization out there...

Make that new Times ombudsman at public@nytimes.com earn his salary defending this hatchet job ....

UPDATE: See Mark Kleiman for more.