Thoughts in a Haystack

The Australian Conservative has finally noticed that the editorial page of The New York Times has a liberal bent.

Typical of conservatives, they have to be explicitly told in no uncertain terms by some "authority" before it penetrates ... in this case, by outgoing public editor Clark Hoyt.

Also typical of conservatives, they mistake a liberal editorial policy for a justification to deny reality, making a particular point of noting Hoyt's statement:

[The Times] does not take creationism or intelligent design as serious alternatives to the theory of evolution.

Now, I'm more than willing to take any Times story with a grain of salt when it deals with a social policy under reasonable debate. I'd do the same with the "Fair and Balanced" network too ... away from the "editorial policy" of known loons like Glenn Beck.

But when it comes to a little thing called reality, why would you declare that everything a source says is false based on ideology?

Oh, wait ... they're conservatives ... never mind!

_____________________________________

P.S. This has nothing to do with a certain Silver Back's pointing out that Americans lead the world in serial killers.
.