The article starts with critical comments from U.S. military officials David Petraeus and Mike Mullen, who say they think the troop withdrawals are too much, too soon.  And on the other side of this debate? USA Today explains: "Critics however say the drawdown risks reversing hard-won gains against the Taliban." In other words, critics who question the wisdom of the troop withdrawal.

The piece quotes a litany of such pro-war voices: Seth Jones of the Rand Corporation, Sen. Joe Lieberman, Danielle Pletka from the right wing American Enterprise Institute and former Bush UN ambassador John Bolton.

The piece finally includes one expert-- Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations-- who stresses that there will still be plenty of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. I guess he would qualify as the dove.

Don't debates  usually involve people who have different opinions?

Proponents say the measures prevent vote fraud. Opponents say they are designed to stifle turnout among students, poor people and minorities, who are more likely to vote for Democrats but might lack government-issued IDs, such as driver's licenses and passports.

Actually most opponents tend to point out that there is no voter fraud problem. Any decent report on this subject would point this out-- otherwise readers are left with the impression that Republicans want to maintain the integrity of the vote, and Democrats are upset that they'll lose some of their supporters.

Baker argued that the United States needs to encourage more domestic oil drilling. Baker championed efforts by Shell to drill in Alaska, which have been stymied by government bureaucrats.

As FAIR noted, Baker's Rice University institute receives funding from an array of energy companies, including Shell-- which also funds the institute's lecture series. It would be normal for a newspaper to mention this to readers, but USA Today did not.

After receiving a letter from FAIR, the paper issued this correction yesterday (which is hard to find on their website):

USA TODAY
June 8, 2011 Wednesday
FINAL EDITION
Corrections & Clarifications

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 10A

A June 1 Forum column by former secretary of State James Baker on Alaska energy exploration should have noted that Baker has links to Shell Oil Co., which is mentioned in the piece. The James A. Baker III Center at Rice University receives funding from Shell, and the company also sponsors a lecture series for Baker's institute.

The nation's second-largest newspaper is expanding its coverage of advertising-friendly topics, designing content for smartphones and tablet computers and refreshing the look of its print edition, whose circulation has fallen by 20 percent over the past three years....

For readers, it means lots of travel tips, gadget reviews, sports features, financial advice and lifestyle recommendations. Top editors say investigative journalism will also be emphasized....

Even as it publishes more stories aimed at attracting advertisers, USA Today is promising to produce more hard-hitting coverage from an expanded team of investigative reporters. The investigative unit now consists of nine reporters and editors compared with more than 30 people devoted to entertainment coverage.

For more on the reality of ad-friendly journalism, read Janine  Jackson's "Fear and Favor" report in the March issue of Extra!.