I'm just glad that Jayson Blair got out of there before it really went bad.

Hey, at least you got an excuse. Just think of how left out Oliver Willis must feel.

I have a brother that lives in NJ and works in NYC that said he gave up the NYT several years ago because of the obvious bias.

If anything the Times has gotten worse since Howell Raines departed. It takes advantage of every opportunity to skew a story. I've been reading the Times daily since 1965--but have just cancelled my subscription. Although I must say that Dowd's column is generally useful for getting the adrenaline flowing in the morning

Nah, Dowd's column doesn't even get a reaction from me anymore.

And the Raving Atheist makes a hilarious point.

I feel you pain. I live in California, I can't even read my Hometown paper. The Infamous San Diego Union tribune. However, it should be noted that at least most of the other liberal papers have journalist that type most of their own bias bullshit. Here in San Diego our paper does not employ journalist they employ " CUT AND PASTE " artist.

I would add the Financial Times, CNN, all of the major networks, PBS, and NPR to your list. Thank goodness for talk radio, Fox News, and internet sites like your own to help people like me have an idea of what really is happening out there. I do peruse USA Today, I get it free when traveling, to help me determine to look further into issues. Having a sports section helps to overcome the news section.

The New York Pravda(Times)is just your avrage left-wing rag just like they always do hey its just like with dan blather and them at 60 minutes and who could ever come to trust any of these liars the New York Pravda it just one in amany left-wing news papers hey the few good uses for this paper is lining a birds cage or wrapping your trash in

Why are people upset or surprised about the Times attempt to spin the blogosphere? Who gives a rat's ass? The MSM always makes a mistake by underestimating us.

It's true that Duncan, Dkos, & Marshall all have booming business - but it doesn't translate into any effect on the culture. Only the conservative blogs are overturning the status quo. Come Nov 3, that article is going to look pretty silly.

Joke of the day - Maureen Dowd's 4th paragraph wins again:

All last week in New York and Washington, Prime Minister Ayad Allawi of Iraq parroted Mr. Bush's absurd claims that the fighting in Iraq was an essential part of the U.S. battle against terrorists that started on 9/11, that the neocons' utopian dream of turning Iraq into a modern democracy was going swimmingly, and that the worse things got over there, the better they really were.

That is insulting to so many people in so many different ways - its hard to believe she isn't just playing a character in her articles. Most of the NYT is like that, come to think of it.

It's actually amazing how irrelevant Duncan, Dkos, Marshall, & Iglesias are. They have huge followings, but it hasn't translated into any momentum for Kerry or against Bush.

By contrast, the conservative blogs propelled Swift Vets to the top of the book charts, debunked Danron, & have forced Kerry to waste $$ & energy defending his internet flank when he should be campaigning. Why is anyone surprised the Times doesn't want to congratulate us?

More CBS Legal "Wife Beating" bruises found

http://scyllacharybdis.blogspot.com/

Well, I cancelled my subscription to the times in 2002 (if memory serves) because the bias was really bothering me. Two years later I've re-subscribed (because I have a one hour commute and I do the puzzle on the subway, also the book reviews, the film reviews, the restaurant reviews, and most of the international coverage are solid). The bias is obvious: ignore it.

If you read the story (not that I recommend it), none of them really come off that well. Consider it less a missed opportunity than a dodged bullet.

I'm not upset at being excluded (I could honestly care less), but it's a horrible and lopsided article about the blogosphere nevertheless.

Regarding the NYT article:

The first two questions are in reference to Charles' comments; I refuse to sully my browser by posting on his site. It was bad enough that I unthinkingly clicked the link without reading the URL and ended up visiting it at all:

1) I can't even begin to fathom where Charles gets the idea that the article was written in "glowing terms" with regard to the lefty bloggers. He could probably find bias in the raw, unedited footage of, say, the destruction left by all the hurricanes in Florida, or a weather report for Texas.

2) Do you think it's possible that one reason a guy from the NYT focused exclusively on left-wing bloggers might be that the righty blogs incessantly trash his paper, so he figured they wouldn't want to talk to him? Or, even further, that he actually did try to talk to some, and they refused?

3) I really don't see what was so bad about the article's description of bloggers and the blogosphere as a whole; it seems like the guy was just describing those individuals, and the portrayals seemed fairly neutral. So what would be an acceptable portrayal of the blogosphere, in your opinion? I don't mean every lurid detail you would want included, I mean how in a general sense could a reporter write about the blogosphere without being accused of "bias" against it, or "bias" for or against one side of it or the other?

Now THIS is what I call insulting to bloggers:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6098633/site/newsweek/

Not that there aren't some valid criticisms included in the article, but "ankle-biters"? Wow...