[laurav]

Nor was there much neutrality shown between George Bush and the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. After the Norwegians – who gave us the term "quisling" – awarded former President Jimmy Carter the Peace Prize citing his vocal opposition to President Bush's war policies, the press sprang to action. The whole chorus began calling this comically inept president one of America's "greatest." Good Morning America's Charles Gibson said Carter had "become, in the opinion of many, the greatest ex-president of modern times."

MSNBC's Brian Williams – who worked for Carter – asked a history professor if it was fair to call Carter "the best former president in, at minimum, modern American history, and perhaps, well, I guess, the last 200 years?" (Absolutely, historian Marshall Frady replied.) On the "Today" show, Katie Couric said: "I mean, it's so wonderful ... and so well-deserved."...

So it's interesting that the Times viewed Ailes' letter as an affront to objective journalism.

None of these people work for the NY Times. I don't understand why she's citing them as evidence that the NY Times has not been neutral in the war. I don't think they have, but couldn't she have cited examples from the Times? Ann owes it to readers not to be lazy in reporting.

[bumba_rasclot]

It is you who has been lazy in following her argument.

She has simply given other examples of news outlets being less than strictly objective in their coverage of politicians with nary a peep from the Grey Hag.

[Tempest]

I think you missed the point.

[hrhdave]

Ann was pointing out that Ailes wasn't reporting news, he was sending a personal letter to the President. He wasn't expressing partisanship, but patriotism. The Times staffer with a byline slams Ailes and dams Fox but ignores egregious cases by others and itself. It's not a matter of guilt by association. It's a matter of Times' hypocrisy and stoopidity.

The Times is still hiding Pinch Sulzberger's SAT scores.

[Dan Day]

None of these people work for the NY Times. I don't understand why she's citing them as evidence that the NY Times has not been neutral in the war.

That's not the point she's arguing.

Her point is that the NYT gasped in horror and thought it required a scolding editorial when a conservative newsman expressed an opinion that wasn't 100% neutral and non-partisan, *but* they never uttered a peep when faced with more clearly outrageous examples in the past by newspeople on the liberal side of the fence.

Her point is they're hypocrites, with a glaring double-standard.

Liberals are allowed to be wildly partisan, but conservatives aren't.

That's the meaning of the tail-end sentence you quoted from her: "So it's interesting that the Times viewed Ailes' letter as an affront to objective journalism."

She's saying, "it's interesting that they've never jumped on all those other examples of partisanship, but they saw Ailes' less egregious behavior as 'an affront to objective journalism'".