Even Smarternysun is willing to give credit where credit is due. Today's Sun isn't half bad — it's not run-down-the-street-praising-its-name great, but it's not the usual hang-your-head-in-shame awful, either. No major gaffes to speak of, no glaring copy errors. Congrats.

That being said, if this is the best they can do, no wonder Mnookin and Kampinsky are leaving. William "Please, Call Me Bill" Hammond, Jr. turns in an adequate lead story about the state budget plan, but fails to get in anything other than a few plaudits from city and state officials; for instance, he tells us where some of the money is coming from and going to, but he doesn't get into the meat of the issue — whether the allotments enough, how much comes from each source, or even what might be wrong with the budget. While he notes that "some say that this will make deficits worse in the future," to find out who and why, you've got to turn to the Times, whose own story has on-the-record criticism of the plan as overly reliant on one-time sources like government property sales. And while Hammond assures readers that "state lawmakers are expected to pass [the budget] today," what he doesn't mention — and what explains why no lawmakers are quoted — is that they haven't actually seen the budget. It seems a bit overly speculative to say they'll pass it on the day it's introduced, especially given that — and this, too, is a fact Hammond overlooks — the budget is actually a series of bills, each of which must be approved separately and, as a corollary, could be defeated.

Then there's the "no comment" from Bloomberg or his office. Taken alone, it's acceptable. These things happen — lawmakers don't want to be heard from on a particular issue, or an issue emerges too late for them to chime in. But it seems to happen a lot in the Sun, and at particularly key points. Sometimes, like the April 29 story about weapons sales to China, the paper didn't take the time to get in touch with the Chinese Consulate until late Sunday night, and, not surprisingly, the consulate didn't respond. Other times, stories are simply, oddly, bereft of the "he said, she said" quotes that give news stories the heft of, well, truth. Take today's second story, "Sharpton Objects to Bloomberg's Pick for a Police Job." The article reports that Rev. Al Sharpton has criticized James Fyfe, the mayor's pick for deputy commissioner of training, for comments made at the Diallo murder trial. But as to what Fyfe said, or why, exactly, Sharpton is criticizing him, we don't know. Anna Schneider-Mayerson asserts that Sharpton's criticism may be "the first sign that his honeymoon with Mayor Bloomberg is over," but Sharpton isn't on record with a single negative word against City Hall. And both Bloomberg and Fyfe refused to comment. To fill space, Schneider-Mayerson quotes a raft of Fyfe supporters, and even - get this - gives biographical information for the man whose name adorns an award given to one of Fyfe's books. Huh? Smarternysun recognizes that Seth Lipsky is proud to call himself a "newspaperman," but there seem to be a few lessons in editing that he has yet to learn: a) Don't budget stories until you've seen them; b) if the quotes don't come in, bump the story inside; and c) just because you have the chance to attack Sharpton, that doesn't mean you should take it. After all, this is a newspaper, right?