I stopped reading The New York Times Public Editor column shortly after then-Public Editor David Okrent confessed that the Times is a liberal paper. I’d known that long before, but half of the fun of it was that they’d never admitted it.

The whole thing was like the wino who tries to convince you that he really needs the dollar to buy coffee as alcohol fumes waft from his breath and clothing.

On Sunday, new Public Editor Arthur Brisbane set a marker for his colleagues at the Times and it’s almost as if he believes that Okrent’s frank assessment never appeared in print.

Now, though, the general election season is on, and The Times needs to offer an aggressive look at the president’s record, policy promises and campaign operation to answer the question: Who is the real Barack Obama?

Is this a real-life “Heaven Can Wait?” Has Brisbane died and Andrew Breitbart’s soul taken up residence?

Let’s ignore for a moment the fact that maybe this should’ve been something the Times could’ve done before donning their cheerleader uniform and pom-poms four years ago.

Brisbane has done his research and assures us that Times reporters and editors are unbiased, non-partisan and professional.

Based on conversations with Times reporters and editors who cover the campaign and Washington, I think they see themselves as aggressive journalists who don’t play favorites.

I see myself as a sex symbol and all-around ladies man. That doesn’t make it reality.

Still, a strong current of skepticism holds that the paper skews left.

The view that the paper skews left is limited to those who still read the paper.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, is a co-author of “The Obama Victory: How Media, Money, and Message Shaped the 2008 Election.” I asked her what she thought The Times should do to wring out bias in its 2012 coverage. Among other things, she said, “Don’t play a sex scandal out when you don’t have any evidence,” a reference to The Times’s controversial 2008 article on John McCain’s relationship with a lobbyist.

Brisbane calls it a “controversial” article. Normal people would call it “false” or “baseless” or “grossly irresponsible.” The Times attempted to backtrack after people looked at the article and its thinly-sourced innuendo of an extramarital affair by suggesting that they didn’t suggest there was an affair. That was Bolshevik Storytelling.

If you’re wondering who the editor who oversaw and defended that travesty of a story was, you’ll be relieved to find out that she’s no longer in that position. Her name is Jill Abramson and she’s now executive editor of the Times.

If you’re expecting fair or balanced coverage this election season from The New York Times and its reporters, then shame on you.