Sigh. Are we still discussing this nonstory?

Oh, and he regularly updates a New York Times online blog titled, "Conscience of a Liberal." You can criminalize him as a "hard left hack," but that doesn't change the fact that this entry's author's claims are logically fallible. Krugman's paid to be biased — his profession is leftist economic commentary, and whether he has distorted factual evidence in his political favor is solely a subjective judgment. Therefore, I continue to focus on indisputable truth: He's an opinionmaker and obviously held to standards removed from the journalistic realm. Objectivity is a nonissue when you're business is two cents.

No problem.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti...

Do your own research.

Conservative pundits are equally prone to twisting factual evidence in their favor. You can denounce Krugman, but you can't deny that your site isn't objectively credible.

Allow me to reiterate a previous comment: Krugman writes an opinion column, which means claims of "bias" are invalid. If you plan to use this laughable criteria, perhaps your next blog entry should be titled, "Top Ten Most Right-Biased American Journalists - #1: George Will, The Washington Post."

This is a ludicrous nonstory. In concise summary, The Daily Caller alleges that openly liberal commentators attempted to influence the agenda-setting of straight news reporters. This commonplace occurrence is not an obscene rarity.