November 10, 2008

Well writing about food is certainly more fun that writing on business. Once again, change I can believe in...

The first place that I looked for food coverage was the Star Tribune, not because I'm being lazy as usual, but because I thought it would be pragmatic to learn about local restaurants if I intend to fulfill the effete latte sipping role that's been assigned to me and so many other Americans. The article I found was called "Urban Renewal" and it was about a restaurant called La Chaya Bistro in south Minneapolis. The first thing I noticed was that the photos were gorgeous. I was greeted to a vibrant shot of halibut wrapped in banana leaves. Even if the review had slammed the place, the photo would have been an endorsement enough to go check it out. The restaurant is a corner bistro that serves Latino and Italian food (but not together...as the article humorously implies, we're all a little tired of fusion for the sake of fusion). Not much of the article was actually focused on the food, only briefly touching upon a few soups that were ordered by the author. Instead most of the review is concerned with the restaurant's aesthetic qualities, specifically mentioning how much better the world is that the restaurant replaced a Kentucky Fried Chicken. There are a few biting quips that made it chuckle-worthy, but all in all, it was too short to really get a good picture of the quality. It reminded me of capsule movie reviews where 90 percent of the article is plot regurgitation with little actual opinion.

Hoping for more substance and deflating wit, I went to the New York Times. I knew I was in for wonder when the review I found was a 1 star review with a "good" description next to it. In a world where 4 stars is starting to mean nothing, I love that the NYTimes holds back. The restaurant is Bobo, and the review immediately anthropomorphizes the restaurant and places it as a high schooler on the first day of school, which automatically makes this more interesting than the last one I read. Phrases like "self-impressed," and "predictable avacado" inspire me to unleash my inner-bitch which is what I feel an entertaining negative review should do. My favorite line is this, "If you asked what it meant, you were told that it was shorthand for the confluence of bohemian spirit and bourgeois success. And you winced, especially if you learned as well that the restaurant’s owner, Carlos Suarez, had dubbed its energy-efficient, recycling-sensitive ethos “coco,? for “collective conscious.?
Soul-crushing! Needlessly wordy! I'm in love.
There are some praises for the restaurant, but the main concept is that it isn't good enough to be as pretentious as it is, which is semi-ironic coming from the sacred vestige of hoity-toity that is the New York Times. There is an anecdote about Bobo being out of a $62 bottle of wine and the recommendation given in place being over $110 with no discount despite being out of all fairly priced wines. I thought it gave a good picture of the place's atmosphere. Also, it mentioned many dishes and was very very in-depth. But Lord, I feel like John Q. American might like film critics better if they read food reviews more often.

Finally I went back to Minneapolis and to City Pages for my last review. I was attracted by the opening line of one review which states, "What makes a Caesar salad worth $19? Seriously, I'm asking. Lettuce grown in Frank Gehry-designed greenhouses and sprinkled with Voss water?" Yes, plz. Later it says "I was glad I'd asked for the anchovies—two flat fillets laid across the lettuce heap like they'd stretched out for a nap—because the anemic salad dressing lacked any of its characteristic pungency" The wordplay is great, the message is well-received, and if anything, everyone loves making fun of bougies, even if we all secretly strive to be them. The restaurant is steakhouse Manny's, and it gets torn a new one. Garlic bread is described as being like a pumice stone and the steak is compared to a bloody napkin. Oddly enough, they like the dinner menu a week later and claim the audacity of Manny's to be a selling point. I have to say the abrupt switch in tone and supposed quality confused me, but I can't say I wasn't entertained by the more conversational writing. I don't know food that well, but I still enjoyed reading about it.

I'm scared to go somewhere good for my assignment because it's obviously much easier, and much more fun, to write something negative.

October 28, 2008

Business as usual

Oh crap, business articles!

I'm guessing The Economist probably has some of those. Probably. The article I found, and proof of my procrastination, is about the collapse of the Japanese stock market. It immediately started talking about cross-shareholding as unique to the Japanese financial culture, and I was immediately confused. AS USUAL. I know I hammer on about my financial ignorance a lot, but really, I can't help it. Not only is this about the stock market, but it is about a stock market not exactly like the one I'm used to hearing about. The problem is when I hear words like "capital," they act more as abstract concepts instead of anything I could grasp. What I did notice in the article is that there are obvious parallels between this crisis and our own, as the government is getting involved by pumping money into some of the shares, which was interesting to me. In regards to business writing, I didn't notice anything too unusual from "regular" writing except that it maybe expects more from it's audience as it can't be concerned with explaining concepts every article to people like me. And thus the cycle continues.

Looking for a business article that I could possibly wrap my little brain around, I headed on over to the New York Times. I found a pretty interesting and equally terrifying one on declining newspaper circulation numbers. It was another five percent this spring from the one before it. Even more depressing, USA Today was one of two to actually going up, suggesting that in troubled times, Americans like colored pie charts. The article at first just addresses some of the facts, and then goes later into an analysis of why circulation is down and how news organizations are trying to combat it. One point I thought was interesting was that by reducing the amount of coverage in newspapers (mainly due to financial problems) and focusing on online news, they are inviting people to quit reading papers. I feel like it could be a valid point, but I don't really see how it could be put into practice without the money or without the understanding that modern audiences like interactive multi-media news sources. I guess what that theory implies is that there should be more content in the papers to make people want to read, but considering they have to be published everyday, I don't see how one could expect the Pioneer Press to turn into The Atlantic.

Finally, I went to the Hollywood Reporter to calm my frazzled nerves. The article I read was about the possibility that the bad economy is leading television networks to be more forgiving with the proverbial cancellation ax. They cite the full season pick-ups of new-ish programs as golden as "Knight Rider" and "Private Practice" which have rating low enough that they would have been canceled any other year. The article suggests that the networks are being a bit more cautious and thrifty and investing more time in things that they have already paid for. Yanking a show that has produced 13 episodes already while only airing 4 is wasteful. Instead, they are going allow some shows more time than usual in the hopes they can find audiences and that they as networks can save money on shows who have already been invested in. If this saves my beloved, yet crucially low rated "Pushing Daisies," I will actually take delight in the economy dying. Because I'm selfish. Every week the show makes me so happy with its sweetness and clever humor that I want to hug everyone I see for about an hour after. With a reaction that strong, I'm afraid of what I will do when it gets taken from me. Regardless, I thought this was a neat article because it showed how the large economy fiasco can cause less important things to suffer and adapt as well.

This really isn't my forte.

October 20, 2008

Everyone's a critic

First can I say how much I am loving this Michelle Bachmann controversy? Yes? Thank you. It's wonderful! Hysterical! I couldn't ask for better. Minnesota is just getting weirder and equally diverse when it comes to politics. We were the lone vote for Mondale back in the day, we elected a former wrestler and Z-list actor for governer, are potentially going to elect a well-known comedian and author to senate, and nearby districts have elected candidates as progressive as Keith Ellison while also electing polar opposite Michelle Bachman who probably questions if Ellison should even be allowed to be a part of government let alone the United States. It's bananas and I don't know if I should be ashamed or amused.

So obviously I went looking for opinion pieces on all the crazy shenanigans. I went to the Star Tribune's Nick Coleman for my first source to keep the topic local despite it's national status (Powell's involved!) I guess my first thought about Coleman's writing is that I think it is a welcome change to read something that essentially acts as news, but also has personality. I'm not saying I think this should replace "actual" news as it isn't objective, but there is still a lot of information in the article while also having enough flavor to pack an extra punch. On a personal note, I've had some hesitations in the class so far, as I get a little nervous about being held prisoner by the rules of journalism. That isn't to say I don't respect of understand them, but I can't help but want to inject myself in everything I write. Obviously my writing needs more discipline and work, but I tend to only enjoy my writing when there gets to be some panache or humor in it. Editorial writing appeals to me because it does allow writers to be personal while also delivering information of valuable use. Maybe I'm meant for the blogging age. Maybe I'm giving myself too much credit. Maybe I'm annoying you right now. Who knows.

Besides my identity crisis, I enjoyed the article. It didn't say anything I didn't expect (Bachmann should just keep her mouth shut? Really!?) but it read well and kept my attention and Coleman didn't become too much of an attack dog in a way that tends to make me disagree with statements I agree with just because I'm annoyed at the over the top lashing of the writer. I would have liked a little more emphasis on the national aspect of Bachmann's remarks and what they say about the way McCain is running his campaign in it's last moments. Or maybe I would have liked a word about the tendency that many Minnesota Republicans like Bachmann, Pawlenty and Norm Coleman have to become eager mouthpieces for all the Republican big-boys. Whatever, it was fine.

To prove I like being in a rut, I went to the Washington Post for a national editorial piece. What I found was a wonderful piece by Richard Cohen about how the tonal shift of the Republican party has changed from this election from the last. The article made me realize, as much as I had been opposed to almost everything Bush stood for in 2004, I didn't quite remember the mood being so nasty as it is now. Of course there were still attacks on candidates and those Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were pretty vile, but as the piece says, Bush ran as a compassionate conservative, which is much different than McCain. However dubious Bush's platform may have been, it does illuminate a stark difference in campaigns. Bush, bless his heart (?), probably did think he had the best interest of little Iraqi children at heart when he pushed forward with the war. McCain, in a move of desperation, is making his campaign almost-retro in it's fear of the unknown or fear of the outsider. That more people aren't calling it racist is beyond me. Perhaps I like throwing that card around too much. The whole tone is anti-immigrant, and shockingly eager to paint Obama as a threat to America for reasons that go beyond economic plans. The McCain-Palin campaign has stood by and allowed rallies to get out of control as crowds basically incite wannabe lynch mobs. Every time someone calls Obama a terrorist, McCain turns a blind eye, not directly taking a part in what's being said, but certainly not doing anything to stop it. Cohen knows most Americans are smart enough to see through it, and he understands the crucial mistake McCain is making as he continues to antagonize a lot of the minorities that Bush admittedly won over. The days of a naively optimistic president are over. If McCain takes office, we'll have one with absolutely no regard to uniting a country in any way shape or form. With Bush it may have been imaginary, but at least it was intended. McCain is all about inciting fear of the unknown back into America. Our buddy Strom Thurmond is looking up and smiling.

I wanted something lighter for the last article, and I found it at the Chicago Tribune's website. Columnist Steve Dahl's piece is on how he doesn't like Halloween. I was drawn to this because the old grumpus ranting about something insignificant has always been a favorite genre of mine. This was a feeling that peaked when I saw a 60 Minutes Andy Rooney segment where he honestly complained about fans sending him presents that they thought would help him. It was 5 minutes of Rooney telling his fans how he hates them essentially. I swear I'd never been happier, and it was one of the first times where I was able to pay attention to one of his segments rather than being distracted by his eyebrows which might as well just be wings for all I know.

Costumes are too expensive! Candy is too expensive! I don't like getting out of my chair to answer the door! Remember pagans? And what's this about dressing up dogs?
Annoyed yet? I wasn't. And that's why I was mad that Dahl actually tried to get a message going on at the end. The moral of our little story was that Halloween isn't that scary compared to what's going on in the world right now. Yeah, I know, I didn't see it coming either. We have Dahl realizing that after years of terror watches and airport security, there is nothing too terrifying about a few rotten eggs and that maybe, just maybe, he'll dress up his black lab as a skeleton. Well I sure learned a lot. So why do I love it so much? The point is=upset people of a certain age are hilarious when I am not dealing with them on the phone at work. I've seen better, usually dealing with technology problems of some sort, but I can't make like my heroes and complain just yet.

October 6, 2008

Biden VS Palin

I work as a telemarketer for the University of Minnesota Foundation. I didn't work Thursday, but I got a text message from a co-worker that said they were let out early because of the debates. It's not that our boss just wanted us to watch them, it was just that the majority of people answering the phone were saying they weren't interested in talking because they were too busy watching the debates. I'm mentioning this because I worked during the first Obama-McCain debate, and I only had a few people on the phone who mentioned they were busy watching. We did not get to go home early that night, nor or we expected to get to go home early tomorrow night. Obviously, people were excited for this one more than they were the others, and while that might seems a tad upsetting, it's not everyday politics gets a character (and I use that word purposely) like Sarah Palin.

The New York Times had a wrap up of the debates immediately after, choosing to highlight the different mannerisms that each used to convey their messages. Palins "aw shucks" demeanor seemed to get the most attention over her content (as I said, she's a character, not a politician) and as disappointing as it is to say, it worked pretty well. I've never hid my discomfort with Palin, but I could not help but chuckling at some of the goofy stunts she pulled. The "Say it ain't so Joe" forced a quick grin out of me, and even the winking didn't upset me as much as it should have. Is it possible to dislike a woman who stands against most things I believe in while also secretly finding her earnestly amusing? I become afraid to think that if these quirks are even seeping into my perception of her, what are they doing to the undecided voters that the media insists are everywhere? That's kind of what this article from the NY Times addresses...Biden schooled Palin where it counted. No one on the message board is saying the debates made them decided on McCain, but more than a few said they knew 100 percent they were voting Obama. She survived, better than expected, but she didn't really excel either. And maybe any secret joy I get from Palin just has to do with Tina Fey. I'm beginning to scare myself.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/us/politics/03debate.html

I, like so many mid-westerners, like to complain about L.A. being shallow and vapid, so I checked out the LA Times to see if their coverage skewed at all towards celebrity journalism. Instead I found a pretty interesting article that attacked the news networks for the coverage of the debates. It mentions how most pundits set the bar so low for Sarah Palin, that it was insulting to the public watching. What I mean by this is how when the smoke cleared, the media acted as if Palin had won merely because she survived. Biden was still the one who actually stayed on the subjects that were asked of them. Palin strayed and avoided topics. It was clear to see. But because she was the star attraction and because we had all expected so little, it was almost like she had pulled off a win simply because she didn't pull anything near Katie Couric levels of catastrophe. Personally, I kept flipping around to channels hoping to find someone who wasn't pissing me off, but all anyone could talk about was how well Palin did "all things considered." As the article says, "In the end, perhaps the most memorable aspect of the debate was the look of confusion on the face of the network commentators after the debate they had spent days rattling on about failed to materialize." They were clearly disappointed she didn't embarrass herself, but at the same time, they still gave her to much credit. Maybe I'm naive thinking Palin wouldn't want to be handled with kid gloves because she's a woman, but geez, I wish it was that easy for me to appease my professors and parents.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-et-tvcritic3-2008oct03,0,2000703.story

Finally, I went for an international perspective at BBC. I don't exactly view the UK as impartial when it comes to reporting any type of world news like some claim they are, but I have to admit it was nice to read an article that recapped the debates in a way that was nearly free of editorializing or one that didn't spend 90 percent of the words focused on how all eyes were all Palin. This is what I would have liked to read had I not actually seen the debate myself. Quotes are clear, facts are checked, and issues are mentioned in depth. It may not be that much fun, but it's calm and collected, which no one seems to be able to be anymore now that the election resembles a three ring circus more than it does "politics as usual." I'm kind of sad there isn't another VP debate, one that could be more focused on what actually happened rather than on how everyone was holding their breath. Still I liked it better than in 2004 when I was shocked to see that Edward's charm could somehow be defeated by evil incarnate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7647986.stm

September 29, 2008

Debatable Winner

First things first, speaking from my own personal perspective, I'd have to say that Senator Obama handily won the first round of debates Friday night. My decision, obviously slanted due to personal preferences, is not just based on his issue which I tend to agree with, rather it was because Obama continued to showcase his tendencies to be a collected and intellectual candidate, traits that have been missing from the White House for the past 8 years. But that's not really what this blog is about, nor do I have the energy to divulge my own political views at this moment. I will admit McCain held his own, and despite however many times he insisted haphazardly that "Obama doesn't understand" or how confused he was about the Kissinger remarks (although Obama wasn't dead on either), it's a bit comforting knowing that there will be some type of improvement from the current situation. I realized this when McCain tweaked the infamous Bush line, "I looked into his eyes and what I saw was a good man" about Russia's Putin, with his own "I looked into his eyes and I saw three letters. K. G. B." Now, I admit I don't really care for my presidents making judgment calls about foreign policy based on guttural reactions, at least we won't have a president who makes these decisions based on whoever is the coolest to sit near at Olympic ceremonies. On to the articles

First, I read an editorial piece by the Star Tribune's David Lightman, and he certainly had a different opinion than me. He champions McCain's performance, oddly giving him credit for performing so well despite the uncertainty of his own decision to debate that very morning, almost acting like that attention craving primadonna display wasn't the most ludicrous move so far on this long winded and arduous campaign. Everything here is McCain, McCain, McCain, and while realize that it is an editorial, it still strikes me as lazy writing. Focus is on how McCain emerged like his old 2000 primary self, full of piss and vinegar and very little nonsense. The first page mentions Obama very infrequently, regulating his performance to the line "Obama was Obama and anyone who likes him was reminded why." That's all very well and good, but it lacks meat. The rest of the article is dictating the distinction in style between the performances and highlighting a few quotes. There's very little to get excited, or even heated about for an op-ed piece. It comes somewhere between an opinion and a news story and despite a little leaning towards McCain's wise-guy personna, there isn't even a strong opinion. Maybe that explains why there are only 3 comments on the article, which seems pretty bizarre considering attacking people based on political beliefs on message boards is the new bloodsport of my generation. I usually find the "It's boring!!!" claim to be the mark of someone with no attention span, but in all honestly, this piece was inert from the opening paragraph for anyone who actually watched the debate as it happened. Here is the link...
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/29832599.html?page=1&c=y

Needing some pep, I headed over to alternative media source, Slate, for another perspective on what can only be described at the presidential version of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. We must not confuse Slate with it's similar in content rival, Slant, because the article is full of it. Regardless, it is once again an opinion piece, (Slate isn't a hard news source) so it is a non-issue. The question is, can it hold me as a reader? The focus on this piece is on the remark Barack Obama (might I add, it's kind of sad to see spell check underline both parts of his name) made about Henry Kissinger made about talking with leaders of "enemy" countries. Barack suggested he was in favor of it, while McCain, obviously flustered to have a Republican icon used against him, insisted no such remarks existed. Bad idea really, as every news machine had the quote ready by debate's end. Turns out Obama was right, just a little incorrect about the position Kissinger thinks should be talking with Iran and the good ol' axis of evil (Feat. Russia). Secretary of State, not president is the correct answer. Still, Obama comes off looking well informed, while McCain looks a little confused in a not so adorable elderly grandfather type of way. The interesting part about this article however, is not so much the truth in the quote, but the wisdom in using Kissinger in a way that almost paints him as an advisory to Obama. This is after all, the same Kissinger who's laundry list of poor judgment regarding everything from human rights to foreign policy is about ten thousand miles long. It was good to see the website, which is unabashedly pro-Obama (I had an ad for his campaign sandwiched between paragraphs) refuse to accept every part of his rhetoric. So when all is said and done here, I've learned, I've got a different perspective, I've admittedly read an article that caters to my mindset, and I've also been left with a feeling that I haven't completely been swept up in that starry-eyed man-crushing wave of Obama love that everyone keeps making fun of me for. Read here: http://www.slate.com/id/2201130/

Finally, I went on back to the Washington Post for my final perspective. I have to admit I was put off by their new found love of posting headlines that end up being slow loading videos that I can't very well watch when I'm sitting in a library or any other public place. Nor do I want to wait through flashy graphics when I'm just trying to inform myself. I swear, this is the worst trend in the media now. I know it isn't cool anymore, but man, I wish they'd keep the TV and internet separate for the most part. Anyways, when I actually found an article that used written words, I found a short little interesting one. The article called "The Art of Meaningless Spin" opens with quotes from both candidates about words that the other didn't use during the debate. Obama's mad McCain didn't ever say "working people" or "middle-class" and McCain raised his blood pressure over how Obama didn't refer to Iraq as a "victory." The author's point is made clear instantly: who the hell cares? Does the use of a few buzzwords undercut everything else the candidate's said elsewhere? It's obvious both men are well-read (a word I won't attribute to Sarah Palin, as much as it breaks me heart to say that about the first serious woman possibly headed to the White House since Geraldine Ferraro) and they both made their positions clear with or without using these select word. The point, one could argue, is that it shows it is supposed to illuminate the supposed disconnect between McCain and the average American and Obama's supposedly bad refusal to view war like a football game. Blah blah blah. More attacks. I'm sure you, like me, are sick of them (even though I swear I've still never seen an Obama ad on television. I know they're out there, as people are apparently mad about mudslinging, but the REALLY uninformed Minnesota voter/TV watcher might be thinking McCain is the only one actually running). The point the article tries to prove is that no one really cares, or at least they shouldn't. The messages behind the words in the debates should be our focus, not the actual word choices themselves. It's an interesting, relatively minor thought that reminds us what to focus on as voters and what not to. It's earnest and there is a little Pinocchio graphic that makes me smile, therefore, I am satisfied. I appreciate any coverage of politics that takes a different approach to presenting fact and opinion. For so much coverage, so much is the same most of the time. Read it here: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/

On an unrelated note to close: This morning on The View, conservative Barbie Elisabeth proved it is possible for her to get dumber. Obviously upset Whoopi was talking about how Sarah Palin said some dumb things with Katie Couric, she went on to say Couric must have a knack for making candidates say dumb things. She cites Biden saying that during the Depression, Roosevelt comforted Americans by talking to them through our TVs. I'm assuming he meant radios, as everyone knows Roosevelt's fireside chats did make Americans feel connected to the president more so than ever. I'm willing to call it an honest mistake. Elisabeth got really mad and snotty about this and said "First of all, there weren't TVs then and Roosevelt wasn't President during the depression!!!" And that's when I cried. I pray to God she meant when the stock market crashed he wasn't President. Really. There are rumors she's going to work for Fox News and she isn't even familiar with The New Deal???? Tears people. Tears.

September 22, 2008

Bulls and Bear-ly There Coverage

I've said before that reading about the stock market can be like reading in a foreign language. All this talk about sub-prime mortgages and hedge funds is making me realize how uninformed the majority of my generation is when it comes to the basics of money. In my opinion, money management classes should be required in all high schools nowadays, and considering it will be my generation that will inherent the financial woes of today, information is needed more than ever.

Regardless of whatever hyperbolic statements I make about my own financial ignorance, it was with great pleasure that I was able to read The Washington Post's coverage of the current economic crisis this morning. The Post's article from today (Monday) serves as a figurative sampler platter to the multitude of issues centered around the government bailout. In two brief pages, the article offered a great deal of analysis concerning the after-shocks of the bailout, including today's tumbling stocks and increased gas prices. Going deeper than that, the article fleshes out the details of the buyout and also considers how various plans will fare when they face senate and congressional hearings. I suppose what was the most enlightening about reading this was how well it blended reality with a tiny bit of optimism. A lot of what I've read so far on the crisis has either been soul-crushingly grim or else naively rah-rah. This individual article makes us aware that hope could emerge from this for long term investments, but also reminds us to not get swept up in any of the euphoric chatter that was everywhere last week after the DOW went up for a few days. Biases aren't easily spotted, as it does pay mind to mention both Democratic and Republican opinions and plans, while also getting sources whose credentials imply elevated knowledge. The Washington Post, which has long been my favorite of the big country-spanning newspapers, always has catered towards more erudite crowds, so it comes as no surprise that their coverage refuses to dumb down or politicize the subject at hand. You can view the article here...http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092201106.html?hpid=topnews

The New York Time's coverage of the crisis is equally well-written and informative, however it does have the slight advantage of being a bit more wordy and unapproachable. I'm not one for simplifying news, but as I've made it aware, money is the Achilles heel of my news understanding. Reading statements like the following is enough to make me panic, sweat and have to re-read sentences like 40 times...
"The contingent shares would give taxpayers an equity stake in companies seeking help through the rescue program, potentially allowing the government not only to recoup however much of the $700 billion it spends on bad debt, but also to profit should the financial firms prosper in years ahead. The legislation would require the value of the contingent shares to equal the value of the assets purchased by the government."
Yikes. Still, despite being a tad overwhelming, The Times' coverage is as in-depth as The Post's, albeit a tad more straight-forward than the Post's which included a lot of different aspects of the story and a bit more analysis of the various plans. The Times does include a lot of quotes from those involved or with knowledge that makes the all around reading experience a bit more fluent and flowing. And despite however many Jayson Blairs you can throw at me, I still view the New York Times as a trusted source because my experience reading Vanity Fair has taught me to listen to those who think they're better than me. They're known for having a liberal bias, but I honestly didn't spot much of one here. The article was about criticism of the buy-out and it looked at it from both perspectives (assuming there are only two. We're pretty acclimated to a two-party system here). And since I don't quite get how to work this site yet, here is a link to the article that you'll have to copy and paste

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/23paulson.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

Finally, like everyone who is looking for bias in a news article, I headed on over to Fox News' website in the hopes of finding something unapologetic in it's one sided brazenness. Despite my expectations, I was still beside myself when I saw the headline for an article on the very same subject..."Dems Tack on Extras." From that headline you really don't even know what the subject is about. All we get is that those no good Democrats are adding on costs like they (ed: we) always do. Early on the article was big on sensationalism, eager to shock with comparisons to The Great Depression that are all rooted back to liberal spending. There is a surprising amount of content for a news site that loves to work with nothing but sound bites, however, most of the content is rushed and spun in a way that doesn't reflect anything the other two sources had. Congress and Pelosi are painted as incompetent and harsh language like "demanded" is used with Democratic subjects. The bias is quite clear, here more evident than usual, and unsurprising considering the reputation the network has. The amount of coverage on this site is much less than the other two as well. Election coverage (much more flashy) gets the majority of the home page space. The other two site's main stories were all on the economic crises (about two-three stories each), but Fox was too busy giving space to an anti-Obama book called "The Audacity of Deceit." My opinion, however biased IT may be, is that Fox has less on the situation because the subject is much more complicated to comprehend than most news stories and its content doesn't translate to quick news blurbs as well as the latest presidential polls do.
Read it at this site: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,426160,00.html

Overall, I liked The Washington Post's coverage the best because it had the most information and presented it in a way which did not dumb down the issue.