By now you've heard about Sen. Barbara Boxer's inflammatory remarks to Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice at yesterday's hearings (Thursday, January 11, 2007).

Considering that Boxer is from California, it would be interesting to see how the Los Angeles Times reported the Senator's outrageous words. Like I said, it would be interesting to see. There is not a syllable about the exchange in today's paper (Friday, January 12, 2007). Rather, when Boxer's "emotional confrontation" in the hearings was mentioned in today's front-page article, the Times focused on how Boxer "recalled Rice's erroneous prediction to the committee in fall 2005 that the Iraqi army's increasing capabilities would soon permit a drawdown of U.S. troops." Ugh. There was no mention of Boxer's verbal attack at all.

Also ... On Tuesday, January 9, 2007, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform finally issued its eye-opening report (pdf) on Sandy Berger's theft of important classified documents from the National Archives. (In April 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to stealing documents and cutting them up with scissors.) Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), who served on the committee, issued a statement that said Berger "compromised national security much more than originally disclosed." In addition, the report found,

The full extent of Berger’s document removal, however, is not known, and never can be known. The Justice Department cannot be sure that Berger did not remove original documents for which there were no copies or inventory. On three of Berger’s four visits to the Archives, he had access to such documents.

Pretty wild stuff. But, again, you didn't read a syllable about this in the Times this week. (Patterico noticed this, also.) In fact, the last time the words "Sandy Berger" was found in the Times was three weeks ago when the paper devoted a puny 404 words to the matter on page A19 (Thursday, December 21, 2006). (Back in 2004, when the story first broke, I noted the Times' pathetic coverage of the episode here.)

The Times' well-oiled practice of downplaying or ignoring unflattering actions of Democrats is nothing new and is business as usual at the paper. We've chronicled and reported on it here, here, here, here, and here, for example. Considering the paper's past obsessions with "Jack Abramoff" and "Valerie Plame," it's hard to imagine the Times allotting such scant coverage if the guilty party were a Democrat.