Reply #17: I used to feel the same way about the paper creeksneakers2 but not

[bunny planet]

anymore. They spent much more time and considerably more effort covering every dirty little smear story 'the vast right wing conspiracy' threw out about Clinton than they have covering the very real criminal (in my opinion, and millions of others) activities of the present administation.

Even when they attempt to do an indepth series of articles on a subject, say the explosives missing from the Al Qua' qua munitions dump in Iraq, a very important story indeed, as soon as they run up against any conservative confrontation or challenge they seem to back down, and not push the story past a very short news cycle.

The lead-up to the election was a case in point. They could have been relentless in their coverage, not partisan, just reporting the truth, instead they ran with lots of mediocre opinion pieces masquerading as journalism, with reporters like Jodi Wilgoren and Adam Nagourney standing out as the most insipid of the bunch of non-muckrakers.

The New York Times still has the potential to be a great paper, but they have been way too concerned with giving the appearance of being un-biased. Simply disseminating (sp.?) the truth should not involve so much compromise. In exchange, they've given up a lot of the power they might have to make a difference, and sacrificed credibility (with me anyway) as to their stature as 'the paper of record' and tarnished their reputation as a great liberal, voice in the media. They seem to be running from that reputation, rather than embracing it. In these dark times, not to sound overly dramatic, that fails those of us who care about the fourth estate and free speech.

We don't have access to real news reporting in the ubiquitous, mainstream, conservative media, all the more reason for the New York Times to take up the slack.