>>>>>I really get annoyed sometimes when the Times is dismissed as some loony left wing attack dog. When people say that I know they are picking it up from right wing "pundits" and don't even read the damn paper.
>>>>
>>>>Why should they read "the damn paper"? Life is short and reading sources are unlimited. Hopefully, you don't suggest pushing your favorite reading down the other people throats?
>>>
>>>I think Mike was saying that those who don't read the Times can't really know whether it's left, right or center. IOW, he was suggesting that to have a meaningful opinion about that requires reading the paper.
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>It is hilarious. Should people read Times again and again to get the same conclusion, or is it permitted to make this conclusion at some point and apply it in future? Please, note that this is how any logical mental process works, i.e. it is not necessarily NYT related.
>
>Agreed. And if someone has read the NYT and decided it was a left wing rag not worth reading further, it is a logical decision not to continue reading it. But they must have been reading a different paper than I have been reading. They have some left wing columnists, as well as some right wing ones. They also have the best and most thorough news reporting of any newspaper in the world, which is why I read it. I don't need any media outlet to feed me my political opinions in sound bites, labels, and screaming.

But the entire tone of the paper is set by Pinch Sulzberger