Perhaps sometimes they are guilty of such, but no paper has received the kind of widespread scorn and derision that the NYT’s stable of braying donkeys has over the past few years. As we’ve previously discussed, Daniel Orkent has made many unrefutable charges of blatant fact manipulation and outright falsehoods printed in MoDo’s, Rich’s and Kruggie’s columns – no one has effectively challenged the WSJ’s editorials in the same context. You may not agree with their opinions, but you cannot challenge them on the facts they cite that form the basis of their underpinnings. This is the critical difference between the two news outlets – transparency is obvious in the WSJ, while obsfucation is part and parcel of the NYT.

I find the WSJ reporting to be have the same quality of reporting as the Times, although of course the Journal’s mission is not to have comprehensive news coverage (outside the world of business). However, I think their editorial pages are shrill and intellectually lazy, as they repeatedly comb over the bald spots in their arguments with ad hominem attacks. Also, since Al Hunt left the paper, there is no diversity of opinion – it’s all hard right. But, as they say, that’s what makes a stock market…

The NYT is still an astounding paper in other areas. The issue is that their domestic political coverage is overshadowing the rest of the paper. In part it would seem that politcal division is squandering the crediblity of all other divisions.

I’d rather read USA Today’s editorial section. IT is far closer to mainstream America.

Not to change the subject here, Mark, but awhile back we discussed the underreported US naval movements in the Indian ocean and surrounding environs. We discussed whether these movements may have presaged an attack on Iran – well, check out this little primer:

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/topten/articles/20060222.aspx

Uh, oh…looks like things are ramping up here exponentially.