The New York Times has stood as a paragon of objectivity since its beginnings. The recent departure from those principles by manager Arthur Sulzberg is a unique event that raises many questions.
It has been quite clear from the testimony of Judith Miller that she received a free pass from manager Arthur Sulzberg of the Times to continue toadying to the White House and accepting uncritically their press releases and leaks. This is a unique event in the history of the Times. Although consevatives commonly condemn the Times as a liberal newspaper, and its devotees laud it as objective, this incident seems to place it as conservative, operating at the behest of a conservative Republican White House. One paper is now tarnished, reporters at other journals who have been used,like Robert Novak,will be discarded as useless to anyone, and reeling jounalists must reassess the rules of the game.
Will anyone in this debacle stop to admit that the myth of a liberal media is no longer tenable? Great newspapers have pointed out that they get attacked for bias by both sides; that goes with the territory. They are objective no matter what the cost. So sorry, The Times has lost its membership in the group that stands above the fray.