I am, of course, abundantly aware of the conservative obsession with the NYT. If you don't like it, don't read it. A quick search shows nine related stories currently available:
WASHINGTON | July 19, 2004
Tiny Agency's Iraq Analysis Is Better Than Big Rivals'
By DOUGLAS JEHL (NYT) News
OPINION | July 19, 2004
Sixteen Truthful Words
By WILLIAM SAFIRE (NYT) Op-Ed
INTERNATIONAL | July 18, 2004
Iraq Uranium Claim Gets Some Support
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (AP) News
INTERNATIONAL / MIDDLE EAST | July 18, 2004
New Reports Again Question Whether Iraq Sought Uranium in Niger
By RICHARD W. STEVENSONand DAVID JOHNSTON (NYT) News
WASHINGTON | July 15, 2004
British Critique Echoes the Americans', but Is More Kind
By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS (NYT) News
INTERNATIONAL / EUROPE | July 15, 2004
British Report Faults Prewar Intelligence but Clears Blair
By ALAN COWELL (NYT) News
INTERNATIONAL / EUROPE | July 15, 2004
British Intelligence Report's Findings
(NYT) Sidebar
WASHINGTON | July 14, 2004
How Niger Uranium Story Defied Wide Skepticism
By JAMES RISEN (NYT) News
INTERNATIONAL / MIDDLE EAST | July 14, 2004
Report Says British Data on Iraq Was Flawed, Not Distorted
By ALAN COWELL (NYT) News
I'm sure the true believer contingent could find something to bitch about in every single one of those stories, except maybe Safire's column. That's life. I know W's handlers are supposed to have final editorial control on NYT content and everything else, not to mention control of the layout and placement too, but implementation has been sadly delayed. |
