Over at the Weekly Standard's blog, Mary Katherine Ham has done a little Lexis/Nexis research and discovered -- surprise! -- the New York Times has different standards when it comes to expressing skepticism for presidential town halls.
When does a "town hall" become a town hall, without need of scare-quote qualification, one might wonder? (When Clinton and Gore held Social Security town halls in the late 90s, they were just plain town halls. Although, one story notes rather deep into the article that the AARP picked questions.)
Both White Houses are entitled to hold such events, which are inherently and sensibly orchestrated to benefit each executive. The press is right to note that fact while reporting them. Odd that the Times chose to do that only for the Bush administration, huh?
I guess their journalistic skepticism is now more properly termed, "skepticism."
This sort of "reporting" just feeds into the belief -- that is completely justified -- that the media is willing to give the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt, something they were unwilling to extend to the Bush administration.