Myrr, you had to go and earn yourself a Trolling rating now, didn't you?
After I had given you an insightful earlier even.
Honestly, as much as I despise the association that the Washington Times has with the "Rev." Moon, their reporting is actually top notch, and outside of the occassional commentary or "letter/message" from the "founder", they typically show absolutely no association with the "Rev."
You can discount it (The Washington Times) if you want, just as I suppose many discount anything that is associated with the "N.Y. Times", but in doing so you'd be missing some quality writing and reporting, just as those that pay absolutely no attention to the NY Times would.
Personally I try to get my information from multiple sources, just to be sure I'm not simply getting one biased news report over another. Better to get multiple reports and see if one reporter has been able to dig deeper than another might have.
Circling back to the point of some of my commentary, this is definitely an area (the topic of the clipped article) where the post has been sleeping on the job and letting other sources take the lead role. For a paper that claims to be a leader and standard bearer in it's own right, that's not a good place to be.
