Fox News has defended itself against administration criticism by saying the White House has confused its pundit shows with its news programs. But the network constantly, misleadingly disparages Obama and his administration in its supposedly straight reporting. Here are the ten of the worst examples; there are many more.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/the-ten-most-egregious-fo_n_327140.html

The press was very lenient with w after 9/11, given his incompetence and his lying about reasons to invade Iraq. The public nearly all stood behind the lying w, giving him the benefit of the doubt, after 9/11, and look where we are now.

How can we take the right serious about anything, when you have been so wrong about everything?

Barry has appeared on as many covers as Dubya, but in less than half the time.

And whereas the Dubya covers are almost exclusively negative, all of those featuring Barry sing his praises.

“And here, by way of comparison, is one of TIME’s covers for the previous president.”

is being disingenuous as why compare all of Obamas covers to “one” of w’s?

You could say, look at all the covers of w on Time, where Time indicates he’s lying. That’s what I notice. You could say they are picking on w for lying. Poor w.

In that post, I clearly state,

“And here, by way of comparison, is one of TIME’s covers for the previous president.”

ONE of TIME’s covers. You’re the one who’s claiming that that somehow meant that Bush featured on only one cover.

http://trackacrat.com/time-magazine-%E2%99%A1%E2%99%A1%E2%99%A1-obama/

For that, I’d only picked out one of TIME’s Bush covers to illustrate the difference in tone of the coverage, whereas I’ve now gone through the TIME archives and gathered up all the Dubya covers that I could find.

http://trackacrat.com/time-magazine-%E2%99%A1%E2%99%A1%E2%99%A1-obama/

Then you say contrast it with W, by clicking on the first link, which brings you to a single Time cover of w the doofus.

This is Faux reporting.