My understanding of the role of reviewers with the NewsTrust is to evaluate the coverage of issues in the media. In doing so, we are supposed to suppress our personal feelings about the issues in exchange for evaluating the journalistic merit of the stories we read. This piece is intended to do just that--it makes a contention about the press--that coverage of the public financing issue was not fair--and supports that contention with actual clips from all the major news sources. It even contrasts "good, balanced" reporting with the most flagrantly "biased" reporting. For style, this piece is quite poor; the authors essentially gathered the clips and regurgitated them. But I don't think we should dismiss the value of the effort required to gather the "evidence" and provide it to us. I did not feel the piece was slanted; I thought the authors provided evidence and encouraged readers to agree with their premise. I regret that some reviewers (OK, 1 reviewer) seems to let personal perspective about the content of the piece affect his judgment in evaluating other reveiwers' comments.