It's hardly news that the NY Times no longer makes even a pretense of being unbiased. But they outdid themselves this morning.
Mitt Romney is visiting London, and yesterday was asked by NBC what he thought of the security preparations for the Games. In an effort to show that he had been briefed and was on top of things, he replied, "There are a few things that were disconcerting, the stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials, that obviously is not something which is encouraging."
Today the NY Times had a large picture of Romney, spanning four columns at the top of the front page, with the following caption:
"An Awkward Exchange in London. Mitt Romney leaving 10 Downing Street on Thursday, began a trip abroad aimed at showing off his diplomatic skills by questioning London's preparedness for the Olympics, prompting a tart reply from Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain."
Is the Newspaper of Record supposed to drip with sarcasm?
(By the way, it's pretty obvious that NBC, the on air equivalent of the Times, wanted to get Romney on the record saying that the security arrangements were perfectly good -- just in case there are any breaches during the Games.)
If they weren't so biased, imagine the fun the Times could have had when Barack Obama showed off his diplomatic skills by presenting Queen Elizabeth with the official state gift of an iPod filled with his speeches:
"Ego Problems Anyone?"
"Queen Elizabeth's Insomnia Finally Cured."
Or, "This'll Sure Keep Her up at Night."
"That's a Gift?"
"Second Prize, Two iPods."
But no. At least give the Times credit for consistency. They never, ever veer from the party line.