>>>>>>>>>Some will reflexively say this is just a partisan post. But I don't see how anyone can read this article with any degree of open mindedness and not be troubled about the prospect of this person becoming President of the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?scp=13&sq=sarah%20palin&st=cse
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Once again, the New York Times addresses the scatilogical side of the news.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't follow. Can you elaborate?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're kidding right? :o)
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope. Here is the definition of "scatology" from Merriam-Webster:
>>>>>
>>>>>1 : interest in or treatment of obscene matters especially in literature
>>>>>2 : the biologically oriented study of excrement (as for taxonomic purposes or for the determination of diet)
>>>>>
>>>>>Given that, I didn't get why Grady used that word to describe the article. Or the "once again." I thought it was a pretty good piece of reporting given the stone wall that has been erected around Sarah Palin.
>>>>>
>>>>>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?
>>>
>>>No, of course not. My point (which I thought was clear) was that people should not trash it or dismiss its reporting without reading it.
>>
>>Sometimes, it is just inevitable. When some source has earned a reputation, usually it is a willingful process by the source, then this reaction is quite consistent. Please, be honest, there are sources that got dismissed by yourself.
>
>But Mike does have a valid point. Even if the NYT is left-leaning, and we all know it is, that doesn't invalidate the information it provides. It just provides the information in a slant to suit its purpose and pounces on anything anti-right. The story shouldn't and cannot be dismissed because it comes from the NYT. Now, to be fair, there are many non-political stories that it covers better than most and often before most. It does have a history of problems, but most have been dealt with. It is a very good source for news and there are equally excellent right-leaning rags that provide balance on political stories.

Actually I don't agree with that, either ;-)

(Boldfacing in quoteback mine).