News organizations, the companies that own them, and those who make business decisions will try to influence what's presented to the public.  I'm not excusing it, and I thank Christine Tatum for making it an issue.  However, reporters who wear their democrat-party credentials on their lapels are no improvement.  (I don't have to criticize Rush Limbough & associates at this time because they're covered fully.)  Was it ethical for NBC to put Tim Russert on the air the very day his testimony concluded?  Was it appropriate for Russert to make a jury of the TV audience by saying more than once, "I told the truth."  Lewis Libby needs to be exposed and convicted for every significant offense he's truly guilty of, but I don't think Tim Russert should be both accuser and Reporter.  Recently, Ann Curry interviewed the President of Syria.  It was her opportunity to probe for solutions Syria could initiate or support.  If she did, the only thing in the interview that sticks with me is her question concerning Bush's comment on Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria.  It certainly seemed as if Ann Curry used her interview & her audience in an attempt to embarrass George Bush and/or lead Assad into publicly criticizing Bush.  Was Curry promoting peace or fanning flames?  If Newt Gingrich made an unauthorized, taxpayer-expense, personal visit to Assad, Hussein, or the President of Iran during Clinton's presidency, whom do you think the press would try to embarrass, Clinton or Gingrich?  Would there have been one week of reporting the incident followed by silence, or would democrat-reporters have harped upon the issue for weeks and months following?  I can't support Gingrich, his politics or his spirituality, but that doesn't mean that Ann Curry or Nancy Pelosi should be spared the criticism they richly deserve.  Ethics Week 2007 would have been a good time to do it.  If you are unwilling to be specific, there will be even more "too many culprits to name" (elected Republicans excepted).  Linda King, Rescue VA