>a href="http://www.donaldsensing.com/">Reverend Sensing pointed to another instance of NYT bias over at Atlas Shrugs.

I'll say here what I said there, because I enjoy quoting myself. Makes me feel big. Especially because the original comment was, in fact, lifted from posts on my site. I am a written Escher engraving.

To wit:

Those who argue for a reduction or elimination of media bias, to be somehow carried out by the media itself so as to maintain its illusory independence, are the equivalent of a 5th-century Athenian arguing that anyone who made a speech had a duty to present only the undisguised truth and make no attempt to sway his audience with any rhetorical tricks.

The only reason people want guaranteed objectivity from their information sources is because they're mental slobs. Lazy, passive absorbers of factoids who don't want to have to think very hard about what's going on in the world, who's telling them about what's going on in the world, and what relationship those two information streams have to each other and to reality. They would like it very much if their information came in easy - to - digest packets of strained goo.

But it doesn't, it never has, and if someone tells you otherwise they're either fooled or lying to you.

Today's media consumer is responsible for his own intellectual development and the fine-tuning of his own discernment. If someone is foolish enough to be affected by the NYT's photographic choices, it does not then become that newspaper's duty to change its ways in order to better accomodate the readily confused.