This morning, I read the paper and scan story about the amazing result from Obamacare - 7.3 million people are still enrolled and paying premiums - another result that exceeds promises, expectations.
Yet, the Times buries the stories on page A 17 (or so) and uses as a pull quote "Adminstration says hackers did not steal personal information (I am paraphrasing - do not have paper in front of me)." And, they also quote Darrell Issa focusing on why some people left right under the lead.
This is just bad journalism. The story is the unexpected continued success of the program. Instead, they are determined to focus on he said/she said politics and to continue to frame story in line with Fox News instead of doing what made the Times great - actually reporting on stuff.
What is wrong with the Times? I thought it was Jill Abramson's desire to try and be "relevant" in DC by tanking good news Obama stories but it has gotten even worse under Baquet. It is a sad state of affairs when the liberal - journalistic paper - continually does things like this. The GOPs are never going to trust the Times and they might as well focus on reporting (rather than this crap).
I guarantee you if there was bad news, it would be on page A1 above the fold. The real reason wny Obama is so unpopular is the failure of the supposedly sympathetic MSM liberal press to report fairly on what is actually going on. With the NYT's continuing toadyism to conservative media outlets and the Post's recent decision to go all Politico, we (the progressives) are just f'd. The only outlet we have to push our POV (even when we are actually successful) is MSNBC and I am grateful every day that experiment lasts.
The only silver lining in all of this is that less and less people are reading actual newspapers. It is infuriating, though, as I'd assume most of the people who actually pay the Times exhoribant subscription rates - like me - hate this crap.