Hat tip to Atrios for A) picking up on this in the NY Times, and B) the Buckaroo Banzai quote.
Boggle your mind with this discussion of a front page story on voter fraud - voter suppression allegations and why the Times ran what they ran.:
Mr. Bronner agreed. “Both sides have become very angry and very suspicious about the other,” he said. “The purpose of this story was to step back and look at both sides, to lay it out.” While he agreed that there was “no known evidence of in-person voter fraud,” and that could have been included in this story, “I don’t think that’s the core issue here.”
emphasis added
And that, Boys and Girls, is why you don't understand the journamalism bidness - it's all about knowing which facts to leave out.
"...Ben Somberg of the Center for Progressive Reform said The Times itself had established in multiple stories that there was little evidence of voter fraud.
“I hope it’s not The Times’s policy to move this matter back into the ‘he said she said’ realm,” he wrote.
The national editor, Sam Sifton, rejected the argument. “There’s a lot of reasonable disagreement on both sides,” he said. One side says there’s not significant voter fraud; the other side says there’s not significant voter suppression.
“It’s not our job to litigate it in the paper,” Mr. Sifton said. “We need to state what each side says.”
emphasis added
Unless of course, one side is not 'credible' for some reason known only to the editors of the Times.
And that's the way a major newspaper makes a difference kids, by knowing what ISN'T fit to print.