What is noticeably absent from the print newspaper edition, however, is the response from McCain Aide Mark Salter.
It is a common courtesy for newspapers to include such a response before printing the accusation.
The fact that Salter's response did not make it in this morning's newspaper is interesting, inasmuch as the response went out at 6:16 PM last night (Marc Ambinder posted it immediately).
In fairness, the NYT's "The Cuacus" blog did include Salter's response this morning -- but they also included an Obama follow-up response to Salter's follow-up response (apparently, Obama always gets the last word at the NYT).
This, of course, is just the most recent example of the less-than-stellar journalistic standards currently being practiced at the nation's "paper of record."
Following are a couple of other examples I spotted:
... Check out this gossip-columnist effort from Elizabeth Bumiller. She seems to be incapable of writing anything that deals with policy or real issues.
... And this article on the FEC is another aggredious exampel of media bias. They don’t note Obama’s role in holding up FEC nominees from Senate consideration.
The NY Times is starting to look dangerously like an arm of the DNC…