Happened to notice the this morning's print Washington Post Headlines and first sentence about the U.S. Attorney firings:
Bush Offers Aides for Hill Interviews
Democrats Probing Firings Chafe at Conditions
President Bush sought yesterday to defuse the controversy over the firings of U.S. attorneys, offering strong support for embattled Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales while proposing to make Karl Rove and other top aides available for private interviews with congressional investigators.
From this article, a mildly informed person would guess that Bush is offering a compromise and the Democrats, like rebellious teenagers, are "chafing" because they aren't getting their way.
Contrast this with the NY Times headlines and first sentence:
Bush Clashes With Congress on Prosecutors
Showdown on Privilege
Seeking Sworn Testimony Democrats Reject Offer to Interview Aides
President Bush and Congress clashed Tuesday over an inquiry into the firing of federal prosecutors and appeared headed toward a constitutional showdown over demands from Capitol Hill for internal White House documents and testimony from top advisers to the president.
Now, I'm not saying that the NY Times is perfect (look at their wide-eyed acceptance of the White House line that the Iranian government is supplying weapons to insurgents). But the NY Times headlines and first paragraph sum up this situation pretty well, and present a neutral description. (I would call it "fair and balanced" if that phrase hadn't come to mean "chock full of Republican lies.")
The Washington Post headlines & first glance coverage are examples of why I've come to really despise this newspaper. D.C. is my city, and I grew up on the Watergate stories. I can't help but think that Katherine Graham must be spinning in her grave over the bottom-feeder, sycophant position the WaPo now occupies. With the exception of Dana Priest, Dan Froomkin and a few other decent reporters and columnists, the WaPo has become the uncritical outlet for administration lies and propaganda.