As if we needed more evidence of bias in the media, along comes the New York Times to provide it.

For most of us, we would likely agree that Romney handily won the first debate.  The rest were closer, but came up as a tie or slight edge to one or the other.  No one could say that it was all one candidate or all the other and be right.

Enter New York Times TV Critic Alessandra Stanley, who said in her reviews of the debates that it was a clean sweep of the debate season for Obama and Biden.  Kind of makes you wonder what debates she decided to watch.  It couldn't have been the ones that the rest of us watched.

Most of the media, even liberals like Ed Schultz and Mr. Thrill up my leg Chris Matthews have admitted publicly that Romney mopped the floor with Obama in the first debate.  That makes it a sad state of affairs for the "paper of record" if they can't get with it and see what the rest of us saw.  What's next?  Will they report that the election was really won by Obama if he loses on November 6th?

Media bias would be funny if it wasn't sad.  It is one thing in an editorial like this one to take a side on an issue.  It is quite another to come off as so incredibly one sided in a review of what we all saw on television for ourselves.  Reporting the news is a sacred trust.  What we all need is something that reports facts and the truth and leaves the interpretation open for others to decide.  That is not what you will get from the times or for that matter, most other media outlets.

It may just be time for a new and different media resource.  Anyone with me?