This is the hi-larious part:

In a reference to yesterday’s debate and the popular television news magazine programme entitled  “90 Minutes”, Bush ridiculed Kerry saying, “He ought to spend 90 minutes debating himself.”

That is classic- I'd definitely err on the side of ineptitude with this guy rather than some kind of bias...

I swear, that some reporters are pursuing their a job like a middle-school boy who is more concerned with girls than with writing a report. These people get paid this "stuff" lol

What the hell is "mid-day.com" anyway? And why is this story datelined Buffalo when the debate is being held in Florida?

And did you know that if you type up this story in Microsoft Word using the default settings …

His email address at the URL is
kaha@mid-day.com

update: email address does not work
was kicked back

Mid-day.com is a foreign news site. Indian, I think, but I can't get the site open to confirm that. I called the problems to the attention of the editor, and he didn't seem to understand the problem with the story. I think it's a translation problem: not just words, but standards for posting and managing stories. I think the reporter was assigned to report on the debate, but then instead filed a report on the lead-up to the debate. As a lead-up story, it's solid. The reporter just shouldn't have phrased it as an after-the-fact story.

As for the Buffalo dateline: I'm guessing that's where the reporter is based. (Inside the story, the correct location is identified.) By US practice, we would use the location of the event for the dateline; but maybe India (or wherever) uses the location of the reporter. I can think of at least one case where their practice would have been more accurate: the AP reporter credited on the "fake boos" story wasn't actually on the site, but was instead relying on phoned in reports. Also, one of the NY Times reporters caught fabricating stories (Was that only this spring? Time flies in the blogosphere!) was known for filing stories from stringers who were on scene, while he barely touched down there. In both of these cases, an accurate byline might have helped readers to be more skeptical about the contents.

Weird article. The tense of some of the sentences make it sound like it was intended for print before the debate, but others state that the debate was yesterday.

I don't understand the quotes either unless this person is clairvoyant.

So much for any integrity.

I left a comment since the email doesn't work. Hopefully the moderator will be embarrased and get someones backside chewed off.

One on one debate? The author is obviously not familiar with the debate rules. They are not permitted to address each other, but only to respond to the moderator.

Since Lehrer like every other moderator is a liberal, I don't know why Bush agreed to any debates at all. Ditto the TV camera wielded by the leftwing networks.

No matter how it really looked, Bush can be presented to look like a blooming idiot while carrot boy can be made to look presidential.

OK... I can maybe... maybe... understand pre-posting a story about a speech that hasn't been given yet since they get a copy of the text ahead of time.

But a debate?!?! The questions aren't supposed to be known ahead of time, and neither are the responses. And how does he know how many people tuned in? I don't think even Neilson can make that prediction. They were way off on how many people actually tuned in to see the Friends finale.

And hey, according to this guy, Kerry is tall (6'5"). Now I'll have to take that into consideration in November.

I was shocked to discover FoxNews has already called the deabte for Bush as well-

I live in Mumbai (f/k/a Bombay). Mid-Day is a local paper here. Pretty much a tabloid (actually virtually all Indian newspapers are in content if not layout) but it does have good cricket coverage.

I looked at the lennon blog and they say that Fox claims victory for Bush, but there is no link to a real story to verify that. I found nothing on the Fox site to show that either.

I also Googled it and came up blank. Not that I went through a huge ream of sites, but the couple dozen I looked at had no reference to Fox and Declarations of Bush winning. Maybe you'll have better luck.

I'm a bit skeptical on thier motives as well, since they come out and call Hume and Cavuto a "Wonk." That maybe true, but if you're being fair minded, you don't say that.

As Blogs go. I'll look at them a bit more, but they are real close to a right off already.