Most notable was the New York Times which in characterizing Teresa Heinz Kerry's 2003 income as being less than Cindy's in 2006 completely ignored its own October 16, 2004, article revealing as much as $50 million Teresa made in "trusts of which she is the beneficiary" not included in her personal tax filing.
Isn't that convenient?
Let's begin our examination with Saturday's Times piece (emphasis added, h/t Redstate, picture courtesy AP):
Senator John McCain’s wife, Cindy, abruptly reversed course on Friday and released a summary of her 2006 income tax return after weeks of vowing not to do so. The form revealed that she took in more than $6 million in taxable income that year. [...]
By way of comparison, during the 2004 presidential election, Senator John Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, reported just more than $5 million in income in 2003.
Yes, but that last sentence conveniently ignored what the Times reported in October 2004 (emphasis added):
Nothing about the trusts that benefit Ms. Heinz Kerry herself and her three sons was disclosed. These trusts, set up after the 1991 death in an airplane crash of her first husband, Senator John Heinz, the heir to the H. J. Heinz Company fortune, are believed to be worth about a billion dollars. [...]
Tax documents that would indicate if Ms. Heinz Kerry has offshore accounts were withheld, as were the schedules detailing her charitable deductions, interest expenses and the nature of the $14,412 in capital gains she reported. But Paul Bschorr, a lawyer for Ms. Heinz Kerry, said Friday that none of her personal investment accounts or accounts controlled by her family trust are deposited outside the United States, a step some wealthy American use to defer or escape taxes.
No information was provided about how much income was earned by trusts of which she is the beneficiary. If the trusts are as large as reported - and the Kerry campaign has not challenged the billion dollar estimate - then even a modest 5 percent return would have generated $50 million of income, 10 times what was on the two pages released by Ms. Heinz Kerry.
Wasn't it convenient this little factoid from a New York Times article four years ago was completely ignored by the Times on Saturday?
Now THAT'S good reporting, dontcha think? This lead Redstate's Soren Dayton to conclude:
There is also a relevance issue. John Kerry mortgaged a jointly held house to pay for the campaign, while John McCain has not touched jointly held assets. In other words, the McCain campaign has gone far, far beyond anything the Kerry campaign ever did in both transparency and keeping assets firewalled. But the left and the press isn't going to be honest about that.
No they aren't, Soren, as can be seen not only from the Times's pathetic bias by omission, but also in ABCNews.com's piece "Cindy McCain's Tax Info Released (Kinda)" (emphasis added):
The pages summarize the would-be first lady's finances for that year. They state she earned $6 million, mostly through real estate and corporate holdings. She claimed $569,737 in deductions and had an estimated federal tax bill of $1.75 million. Beyond that the returns say next to nothing, experts confirmed.
The Associated Press was equally displeased:
Confined to only the summary pages, her released returns offer limited information.
AP finished the article with a scathing rebuke from the DNC:
"It is laughable for the campaign to release so little information and say they are being transparent," said Karen Finney, the communications director for the Democratic National Committee. "This is another indication that John McCain is not serious when he says he wants to run a transparent campaign, and a disturbing sign that a vote for John McCain is a vote for four more years of secrecy."
In the end, it seems it will be impossible for any release of Mrs. McCain's income information to be fairly reported by Obama-loving media.
Color me not surprised.
