Let me explain something to you. When people criticize the Times for being biased, as they often do, what they mean is this: that the times fails to hold the same critical lens up to liberal politicians that it does to conservatives. While I have questioned this in the past I won't dispute that this is probably the case this election. There have been more critical stories about McCain recently than Obama. However, what critics don't say is that the Times makes things up, that they cook stories, meaning that you can't just say a times article is biased and ignore it (Jason Blaire notwithstanding, although that was certainly not a political issue).
The Wall St. Journal is the same on the right. While the editorial page leans right and the articles reflect a certain framework, a thinking person would never dismiss a WSJ article outright just because they favor conservative governance. Not without pointing out specifically what was factually inaccurate in the text. To do so would be stupid, sloppy reasoning. For the record, liberal as I am, I love the WSJ.
Anyway, is there a specific point of contention you have or do you just not read whatever papers Rush tells you not to read? Explain your position vis-a-vis the article and the use of private emails to conduct government business. How is bias clouding the conclusions of the author?
Also, here's a post article talking about the same issue - specifically the governor's failure to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request for emails related to government business.
washingtonpost.com
EDIT: I obviously meant to quote your previous response.