"Perhaps you've seen this:"Published on Thursday, November 3, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
Why I Canceled The New York Times
by John Atcheson
Dear Mr. Sulzberger:
There's been a lot of moaning and gnashing of teeth about the fall in circulation among major newspapers, including yours. I regret to inform you, you just lost another customer. Allow me to explain why.
The Times' 11/2 coverage of the Senate private session forced by Rule 21 was among the most biased I've encountered by a major newspaper and I'm 56 and read several papers a day, so that's a large sample over a very long time.
"Partisan Quarrel Forces Senators to Bar the Doors" doesn't even approximate the nature of the issue being raised.
Placing the story in the lower left hand corner doesn't assign it the importance it deserves.
"Democrats Force Reckoning of Pre-War Intelligence" would describe the content and its import far more accurately.
And for the record, the lead is not Bill Frist's anger -- it's what you chose to split in half, burying the important part on Page 14. To wit: Pat Roberts has slow-walked an examination of whether and how the administration skewed intelligence in the run-up to the Iraqi War.
Lying the nation into a war is a big deal. A very big deal. The soon to be indicted Mr. Frist's anger is not.
...
The press was granted special status in the First Amendment because the founding fathers believed an informed citizenry was vital to a functioning democracy. That special status came with a codicil -- the duty to report the truth (not, as the Times seems to think, the duty to protect reporters who assist in spreading lies).
...
When you are replaced, Mr. Sulzberger, I will consider reading the Times again.
Until then, Good night and good luck.
John Atcheson's writing has appeared in the Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the San Jose Mercury News, the Memphis Commercial Appeal, as well as in several policy journals.")