The New York Times is taking it on the chin from all sides recently.
(The Jayson Blair scandal is one thing — something that was 'solved' with some new editors.)
The new charges — one critic is from the right and the other is from the left — suggest that some serious rot has set in at what once/is one of the world's great newspapers.
The shot from the right:
“The Worst of Times: A Once-Great Newspaper Has Adopted a Radical Agenda?
The New York Times has transformed itself from a news source to an ideological journal, writes Bill O'Reilly. “In almost every section, a Times reader is confronted with liberal ideology.”
The [more thoughtful and, if you ask me, damning] shot from the left:
Unfit to Print:
By Michael Massing
…The leisureliness of the Times's coverage is especially apparent when compared to that of its top competitor. In recent months, The Washington Post has stood out among US news organizations for its sharp and insightful reporting, in both Washington and Baghdad. Hardly a day goes by that the Post does not publish some revealing story about conflicts within the Bush administration, debates within the intelligence world, Coalition policies in Iraq, and the relations among that country's ethnic, religious, and tribal groups. During the prison scandal, the Post ran an eye-opening three-part series (“The Road to Abu Ghraib”) on the abuses that had occurred not only in Iraq but also in Guantánamo, Afghanistan, and Qatar—part of a “worldwide constellation” of secret US detention centers.
When it comes to Iraq, the rivalry between the Times and the Post has become “A Tale of Two Papers,” the one late and lethargic, the other astute and aggressive . . .
Massing's original criticism of the NY Times is also an important read on this subject.