Late last week, The New York Times continued to back off its hit piece on Rep. Darrell Issa (DR-Calif.) as it issued two more corrections to major items in its front-page article.

An article on Aug. 15 about Representative Darrell Issa’s business dealings, using erroneous information that Mr. Issa’s family foundation filed with the Internal Revenue Service, referred incorrectly to his sale of an AIM mutual fund in 2008. A spokesman for the California Republican now says that the I.R.S. filing is “an incorrect document.” The spokesman, Frederick R. Hill, said that based on Mr. Issa’s private brokerage account records, which he made public with redactions, the purchase of the mutual fund resulted in a $125,000 loss, not a $357,000 gain.

And the article, using incorrect information from the San Diego county assessor’s office, misstated the purchase price for a medical office plaza Mr. Issa’s company bought in Vista, Calif., in 2008. It cost $16.3 million, the assessor’s office now says — not $10.3 million — because the assessor mistakenly omitted in public records a $6 million loan Mr. Issa’s company assumed in the acquisition. Therefore the value of the property remained essentially unchanged, and did not rise 60 percent after Mr. Issa secured federal funding to widen a road alongside the plaza.

Among the egregious falsehoods remaining uncorrected is that his former firm is a “major supplier” of electronic components to Toyota.

I was expecting Times Public Editor Arthur Brisbane to weigh in on the article last week, and instead was treated to something I really couldn’t care less about.

Maybe we’ve finally gotten to the point that the Times will simply drop its pretense as an “unbiased” journalistic enterprise.

*Corrected Issa's Political Party*