[tjwmason]

They devoted more front page space to the Ray Charles obituary article (3 columns) than the Reagan obituary article (1 column).

That was astonishing, I went to do a quick comparison, the (British) Daily Telegraph obituary was around 3,500 words, the N.Y.T. c.700. I knew that the Times was bad, but it is utterly ridiculous when a foreign newspaper writes an obituary five times longer.

If you want to read what the Telegraph said, it is available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&targetRule=10&xml=/news/2004/06/07/db0701.xml

F.W.I.W. The B.B.C. has been giving decent coverage. The whole of the funeral was live on their main channel, as well as their 24 hour news channel.

[conservative in nyc]

To be fair, the New York Times obituary continued inside the paper for a few pages. But they gave it less space on their front page than the Ray Charles obit (which also continued on another page). And it was the ONLY article regarding President Reagan on the front page of the early version of the paper. The picture of Smarty Jones, the Belmont-losing horse, was about as large as President Reagan's. And to add insult to injury, there was a story about Kerry's potential running mates directly below and Abu Ghraib directly to the left of President Reagan's photos.

No U.S. paper has been as disrespectful to President Reagan's legacy over the past week --- except maybe the L.A. Times. There's a reason why some call the New York Times America's Pravda. I wouldn't be shocked if the real Pravda were less biased about Reagan's passing.