Great story in the New York Sun about the latest Amnesty International report:

UNITED NATIONS – Amnesty International singled out America yesterday for human rights violations and accused it of creating an environment that “grants license” to other nations to abuse rights.

In a scathing annual report released yesterday, Amnesty specifically highlighted the abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. But critics said that the London-based Amnesty fails to distinguish between democratic systems where human rights abuses are criticized and prosecuted and dictatorial regimes that punish critics.

Exactly. Lumping the U.S. and other democracies with dictatorships is an example of moral relativism run amok. (See Ted Kennedy’s remarks about Abu Ghraib reopening under new management.)

The article is a great example of how the media can choose to frame a topic. The NY Times presented the report in a totally different way — just presenting the allegations and giving the White House two paragraphs to refute it. The difference highlights how political ideologies affect newsroom coverage. Clearly, the Sun went out of its way to balance the anti-U.S. sentiment whereas the Times felt no need to find defenders of the U.S. beyond the cursory White House quote.

So which is the biased newspaper? Your answer to that question probably depends upon your vote in the last election. Maybe objective journalism is a moving target.