Naturally, people jumped all over it, and hey, maybe that was the real intent of the author/editors of the Times. Who knows. After all, the results of this story, even if not intended as an accusation, could have been easily predicted to be construed as and essentially become one. So maybe the folks over at the NYT are a bit difficient of integrity themselves? Or maybe they considered the actual topic to be newsworthy enough to justify the inevitable fallout. I can’t say.

But one thing is clear: Passing the salacious subtext along like this (gleefully, even) without the proper context, proported intent, etc, definately says something about the passer’s own integrity, if not his powers of interpretation.

Tell me why both candidates are not covered equally…?

I’m sure we’ll have the usual “shoot the messenger” mentality…but AA has given validity to WND by quoting them…

Presidential candidate A is accused of having a risky homosexual dalliance with someone he picks up in a bar, scoring powdered cocaine for his partner and crack cocaine for himself in an incident that allegedly occurred about nine years ago. The named alleged partner makes his charges public, agrees to a polygraph and files a lawsuit reiterating the charges and accusing the candidate of harassment and intimidation. The candidate refuses to deny the allegations.

Presidential candidate B is accused by unnamed sources of having a romantic interest in a female lobbyist in the same year. There are no specific allegations of sexual or drug-related incidents. Both the candidate and the lobbyist adamantly deny any untoward activity between them took place.

Yet, for the Big Media, there is no story involving presidential candidate A, but a raging mega-story involving candidate B.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56958

Move on to something important please.