I don't understand the comparison between urban and accurate, or even what they are doing in the same sentence. Sincerely lost on the point there....

Not doing much better with the National Review piece, actually. That is not an analysis of the Times's accuracy or stature, it's some guy whining that it isn't pro-Israel enough to suit him. Back to the issue of alleged bias, I have been reading the Times for years (decades) and wouldn't have described it as either pro- or anti-Israel. They do give an awful lot of coverage to Israel but that's understandable given the large Jewish population in the NYC area. It's no more surprising than the LA Times covering Hispanic issues or the Miami Herald covering tourism. It's something a lot of their readers are interested in.

Grabbing my chauffeur's cap and out of here....

>Sheesh Mike - even the editor in chief considers his paper as 'urban' not necessarily 'accurate.' Read just the first page of this:
>
>http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-gross031403.asp
>
>
>>We definitely do disagree. The Times is probably the best newspaper in the world. Fox News is not as biased as they used to be but comparing them to the Times is ludicrous.
>>
>>>>The NY Times is not partisan IMO. It is sometimes portrayed that way by those who don't like unfawning coverage.
>>>
>>>That's like me stating "Fox News is the most balanced news coverage available. It is sometimes portrayed as partisan by those who don't want to hear the full story from all sides." :o)
>>>
>>>Really, Mike. :o) I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one! :o)
>>>
>>>I think you might actually get a kick out of reading this:
>>>
>>>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9d01e7d8173df936a15754c0a9629c8b63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
>>>
>>>and this:
>>>
>>>http://www.timeswatch.org/