>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>
>>I'm trying to think of one I have dismissed without reading or watching it myself.
>>
>>Sometimes reputations are not so much earned as given by people with a vested interest. In this case -- IMO, of course -- the Times has been given the reputation of liberal bogeyman by hard core conservatives whose political maxim is to respond to any criticism, true or false, fair or unfair, by hitting back hard. So when the Times has at times REPORTED NEWS that did not reflect well on Republican politicians, they have been attacked.
>>
>>FWIW the Times was equally despised by Bill Clinton and his aides. He didn't like a lot of the stuff they reported about him, either.
>
>So, Clinton is a hardcore conservative? Mike, your one message shows clear logical holes, and still you try to judge other people by their belief.
>NYT as a victim of political attacks. Priceless.

Speaking of clear logical holes, how did you draw the conclusion from my message that Clinton must be a hard core conservative? Of course he wasn't. My point was that Democratic politicians have railed against the Times as well, demonstrating that they report facts many politicians don't like. They don't like opening up the newspaper and seeing their mistakes and misdeeds reported there for all to see.