>>>
>>>That isn't some wacko opinion unique to me. The Times is generally considered the best newspaper in the world.
>>
>>Certainly by the Times. Do the names Walter Duranty and Jason Blair mean anything to you? Do you know anything of "Pinch" Sulzberger?
>>
>>(this is just a randomly culled taste - there is so much more it isn't worth googling it for you)
>>
>>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35859
>
>It isn't just their own opinion. They have the best writers, the best sources, the best access. Not to mention way more Pulitzers than any other paper.
>
>I know who Jayson Blair was. Not familiar with Walter Duranty, am guessing he was another con man. The fact that a con man or two slipped through the system doesn't make it a lousy paper.
>
>I also know who Punch Sulzburger was, but am not sure what point you are making there.

Punch was the father. Pinch is the apple that fell a lot farther from the tree and kind of bounced into his current role running the NYT

Surprised you don't know about Duranty (or didn't bother to click the link ) as you studied journalism and there is no liberal bias in American universities. (especially in journalism schools ).

Walter Duranty is one of those Pulitzers - one that Sulzberger refuses to remove from his wall and one of the most disgraceful chapters in American journalism.

I don't question that the NYT has many great journalists working for it that try to do their absolute best. I think there is a corporate culture that allows Blairs and editorial blindspots.

Obviously a great paper, which has made some invaluable contributions but I think I'm just a little more cynical and less prone to worship ( vs earlier mention of Obama speeches. ) I have no problem with acknowledging excellence, I just am very suspicious of people - or institutions - that believe their own hype. I read the NYT. But I don't believe I am reading *all* the news that's fit to print - or at least I don't trust Sulzberger's judgement as to what "fit's".