It's typical. Sometimes it can be something which comes out biased from the wording alone, but obviously there's more blatant stuff like this. There was a recent AFP article about Bali that used phrasing along the lines of changes to the wording "allowed" the U.S. to sign on. Maybe that's just poorly written, but it implies that there was no way the U.S. could change its position, when in fact if it weren't for the current administration the U.S. could be "allowed" to sign up for much more ambitious goals. It's misleading. It doesn't place responsibility where it belongs. The media only serves its corporate owners, certainly not the public's need for good information.

Reports like this where all over the media. Many seemed to be repeating republican talking points.

Even The News Hour on PBS, normally a very even handed and reliable source, said part of the conflict over the energy bill was about the democrats plan to tax the oil companies, not to repeal the tax breaks they were given.

But didn't I hear that he's retiring?

I am embarrassed and irritated to have him representing my state.