NOYB wrote:

"jim--" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
If They're Not Biased, How Did the Times Miss This?
by Chris Field
Posted Jul 20, 2004

For years, conservatives have been decrying the liberal bias of the
"mainstream" media, with the New York Times often cited has the most
offensive perpetrator. Of course, denials of such bias fly out of the
Times'
newsroom, but are their cries anything more than complete and utter
nonsense? No.

What the Times doesn't understand about their reputation as a liberal
rag
is
that reputations are, more often than not, earned -- whether they are
positive or negative. And in their case, the Times has not only earned
the
proper reputation but also is actively living up to it.

This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was arguably
the
biggest story on Tuesday.

If you paid attention to the news at all Tuesday morning, you heard or
read
that Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security advisor (the
Condoleezza Rice of Bill and Hillary's White House) and an "informal
advisor" for John Kerry, is the subject of a federal criminal
investigation
for removing highly classified documents from the National Archives.



Maybe he was removing documents in order to prevent the Bush
Administration from destroying them, sort of like the Pentagon destroyed
Bush's military record, eh?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"jim--" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
If They're Not Biased, How Did the Times Miss This?
by Chris Field
Posted Jul 20, 2004

For years, conservatives have been decrying the liberal bias of the
"mainstream" media, with the New York Times often cited has the most
offensive perpetrator. Of course, denials of such bias fly out of the
Times'
newsroom, but are their cries anything more than complete and utter
nonsense? No.

What the Times doesn't understand about their reputation as a liberal
rag
is
that reputations are, more often than not, earned -- whether they are
positive or negative. And in their case, the Times has not only
earned
the
proper reputation but also is actively living up to it.

This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was
arguably
the
biggest story on Tuesday.

If you paid attention to the news at all Tuesday morning, you heard
or
read
that Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security advisor (the
Condoleezza Rice of Bill and Hillary's White House) and an "informal
advisor" for John Kerry, is the subject of a federal criminal
investigation
for removing highly classified documents from the National Archives.



Maybe he was removing documents in order to prevent the Bush
Administration from destroying them, sort of like the Pentagon destroyed
Bush's military record, eh?

Yes, perhaps. Of course, since Clarke wrote the items that Berger stole,
then perhaps Clarke kept copies for himself...and Berger wouldn't have
needed to steal those to keep Bush from destroying them. Berger was
covering something up.

Perhaps that's why Clinton has been over in Europe practically defending
Bush's decision to invade Iraq? He's cut a deal in return for the Bush
administration making the Berger situation "go away".