PressEthic

This won't be up for long, but currently on the TIME magazine homepage, as the main story, is an analysis of Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. Here are the two articles (1 2), in which you can see that the coverage is overwhelmingly against Rumsfeld and almost seems as if it were taken from liberal blogs or media watchdogs. Here's a sampling from a couple of those stories:

What is surprising is how long it took. Well before the Army Times and Marine Times called for his resignation — even before John McCain declared he had lost confidence in Rumsfeld — the brash Secretary of Defense had lost almost all his allies inside the White House. Just the mention of his name would cause aides to the President to grind their teeth and roll their eyes.

But he quickly stumbled in his stubborn effort to remake the Pentagon. He, and the Bush administration, failed to make the tough choices necessary to build a 21st century fighting force. Instead, they stuffed billions of dollars into 20th century weapons system that sprang from the drawing board when Russia was still the Soviet Union. As F-22 attack planes and Virginia-class submarines consumed the Pentagon's purse, there weren't enough soldiers to prevail in Iraq — and those dispatched lacked the necessary armor to do their jobs.

Now, I happen to agree with the analysis and am not a supporter of Rumsfeld by any means. But I was just wondering if this could be construed as bias? Is it now ok to attack Rumsfeld now that he holds no political office? Will TIME treat Bush the same way once his presidency is over? Don't get me wrong. I am not against this sort of coverage. In fact, I applaud it. But since this publication does work under the veil of objectivity, shouldn't these articles be more balanced?