Today the NYT carries a report by Scott Shane which purports to demonstrate that contrary to the work of unnamed bloggers (ahem), the Ayers/Obama contact was minimal.  This front page account represents the Times' acknowledgement that there has been some significant story that they've been sitting on, but the report so completely fiddles with the truth that it would made a first rate case study in a class on propaganda.Both Steve Diamond  and Tom Maguire    bloggers who've been studying the relationship of the Democrat's presidential nominee and the unrepentant domestic terrorists weigh in.Steve notes, among other things:...the nation's leading paper of record is basing its story on Ayers role in Obama's selection on unnamed sources when the three named sources -- who were involved personally in the discussions about Obama's appointment -- do not confirm that Ayers was not involved. And as I told the Times there is written evidence that, in fact, Ayers was...(Read Full Post)