We have two stories today that show the steady downward slide of the mainstream media.

First, the New York Times has taken a financial beating lately as sales have headed south and revenue is flat. Word came out yesterday that Hank Greenberg would increase his stake in the Times and was looking to buy the troubled paper from the Ochs-Sulzberger Trust. Since Pinch Sulzberger took over the leadership at the Times, the quality of the paper has ebbed dramatically while the extreme partisanship has increased.

From hiring Howell Raines who then hired Jayson Williams to the Martha Bark story and the incessant bad reporting about Iraq, the Times has alienated all but the New York City elite who live in their cocoons on the upper west side of Manhattan.

It doesn't appear as though Greenberg is interested in saving the dying liberal rag, however, even though Wall Street was optimistic for a short time.

The next story involves the Associated Press. More after the jump.

More breaking news from ABC News, which seems to be making up for all the news on Democratic corruption that the news media failed to notice prior to this past election day. Sopranos-lite Senator Robert Menendez is the subject of a second series of federal subpoenas, although according to federal law enforcement authorities he is only a "person of interest" and is not yet a "target" of the investigation. I think we'll be hearing quite a bit more about this, and that this will lead to other things involving Menendez and New Jersey politics.

Note that "person of interest" in a federal investigation is quite a bit more serious that the "innocent bystander" spin that is being put on this episode by the Menendez camp and national Democrats. Oh well, the Senator can always hope for "unindicted co-conspirator" status, as John Murtha had in ABSCAM.

ABC News topped all the networks with their election coverage on Tuesday night:

As a result, ABC's elections coverage was seen by 9.7 million people, according to Nielsen Media Research. NBC had 7 million viewers and CBS 6.3 million, Nielsen said.

Overall, including network and cable viewers, a total of 31.4 million people watched midterm elections coverage Tuesday, up from the 26.3 million who watched in 2002, Nielsen said.

Charles Gibson has turned out to be an excellent replacement for the late Peter Jennings. The numbers suggest that while Katie Couric was trusted to deliver her slant on the news over a cup of coffee, her gravitas as an anchorwoman has yet to be established.

Perennial winner Fox News topped CNN, and the poor-showing MSNBC, to hold the edge in the cable news wars.

The GOP has made some serious gains in the last week. This from Pew:

A nationwide Pew Research Center survey finds voting intentions shifting in the direction of Republican congressional candidates in the final days of the 2006 midterm campaign. The new survey finds a growing percentage of likely voters saying they will vote for GOP candidates. However, the Democrats still hold a 48% to 40% lead among registered voters, and a modest lead of 47%-43% among likely voters.

The good news is breaking out everywhere as the latest USA Today/Gallup poll shows the same thing. As I've been saying from the beginning, the House is not as much a lock as some would believe. Every election, the Democrats have been shown to have a huge lead and that lead has always dwindled come election day. This time seems no different.

We find this gem buried in a NY Times piece:

Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the Democrat leading his party's effort to win control of the House, said, "It's inevitable that there would be some tightening in the end."

Still, Mr. Emanuel, who has been careful this campaign to avoid the public expressions of optimism voiced by other Democrats, added, "This is making me nervous."

As well it should, Rahm, as well it should. How would the Democrats explain away a collapse of this magnitude? In other polling, ABC has the lead at 6% but spins it as an advantage for the donks. Other thoughts here and Dick Morris may want to rethink this op-ed.

You can't make this stuff up.The arrogance of these goons tops any fiction:

In an interview with ABC News, Cheney said that the administration plans to go "full speed ahead" with its policies in Iraq, despite sagging public opinion about the war. Downplaying what voters say about the war, he told ABC:

"It doesn't matter in the sense that we have to continue the mission and do what we think is right. ... We're not running for office."

Nor does "it matter" to any other wanna-be or established dictator. As I have reported recently in posts here, here and here.

The Bush-Cheney legal coupe of recent days created the means to enforce their regime of GOP domination and its policy of "permanent war" -- both by the use of fraudulent elections, and the new police state laws they have put in place.

Thanks very much to ABC News' Sam Donaldson for again fielding questions submitted by our readers. Now, watch his latest replies:

Answers From Oct. 27, 2006
Why is it taking so long for Congress to settle the immigration problems?
-- Question from Linda Collins

Do generals speak freely about Iraq while they are still on active duty?
-- Question from Ed Kappes

Are candidates preparing to file legal action based on voting irregularities?
-- Question from Vicki Grant

Do the Democrats have a chance to win at least one chamber of Congress?
-- Question from Greg Lavergne

How do you define "spin" by the White House press secretaries?
-- Question from Woody Klein

Can a policy be enacted so that all states could participate equally in voting?
-- Question from Rene

Is it ethical for the president to use Radio Day for partisan purposes?
-- Question from Tom Austin

Got a political stumper for Sam Donaldson? Tap into his insider access to get answers to your politics and elections questions.

Each week, ABC News' savvy political insiders -- including Donaldson, George Stephanopolous, Brian Ross and Jake Tapper-- will answer your questions via video, lifting the veil on the popular spectator sport that is American politics.

How to ask your question? Just submit a comment. Then check back Friday to see his answers.

Also, check out Sam Donaldson's video-taped answers to your questions last week.

Last week it was ABC News' Sam Donaldson on the hot seat, fielding the questions submitted by our readers through comments. Now, watch his replies:

Answers From Oct. 20, 2006
Why can't election results not be announced until all polls have closed?
-- Question from Margaret Mathis
Who would be the stronger candidate, Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama?
-- Question from E.G. Meade
Why is it that the price of gas is going down just in time for the elections?
-- Question from Jim Balsey
Does mudslinging help or hurt a candidate?
-- Question from Sarah Brunk
Will Republicans stay home this November?
-- Question from booker
How can the administration say that things are getting better in Iraq?
-- Question from Ivan Bass
Which politicians are most respected by the opposing party?
-- Question from John

Got a political stumper for Sam Donaldson? Tap into his insider access to get answers to your politics and elections questions.

Each week, ABC News' savvy political insiders -- including Donaldson, George Stephanopolous, Brian Ross and Jake Tapper-- will answer your questions via video, lifting the veil on the popular spectator sport that is American politics.

How to ask your question? Just submit a comment with your question for Sam. Then check back Friday to see Sam's answers.