Glass half empty? Which half?

Anal Philosopher Keith Burgess-Jackson has some thoughts on what he perceives as bias in the New York Times:

According to this story, the number of civil-rights prosecutions by the United States Department of Justice is down. Why is it down? The clear implication of the story is that it's down because the Bush administration isn't interested in enforcing civil-rights laws. But there's another (fairly obvious) explanation, namely, that many of the earlier prosecutions were groundless. There are two possible errors: not prosecuting meritorious cases and prosecuting unmeritorious cases. The reporter assumes that only the first of these errors has occurred (or is occurring). Why would the reporter assume this? Gee, could it be to make the Bush administration seem indifferent or antagonistic to civil rights? This is the liberal story, and liberals are sticking to it. They never let facts get in the way of a good story.