Bull [expletive]. You're ironically spinning the Washington Times' reputation for political spin because it suits your own purposes. Yes, the Times should be looked at with a critical eye when it comes to loaded language over partisan political issues/debates, but to try and claim that they're riddled with factual errors to the point that you should mistrust anything they publish is absurd. By the standards you're setting then you'd have to do the same with papers like the The Washington Post, NYT or WSJ, too. And expecting see the protester story "widely reported" the same way is ridiculous; it's not a major story. Semantics. You really think if he mad modified the signs to say "TOO MANY PEOPLE IN THE FOOTBALL PROGRAM KNEW ABOUT SANDUSKY" or something along those lines he would have been treated differently?