The NYT Defames a Fallen Soldier
Michelle Malkin put this story in the news. In a nutshell, the "Grey Lady", increasingly becoming the "Pink Harlot" intercepted the final letter of a fallen soldier in Iraq to his girlfriend--you know, the letter they are supposed to write if they don't come back.
The Times cropped the letter to include only the most helpful passages which indicate that the soldier didn't like war, but omitting the ones that indicate that he believed in what he was doing. In other words, they did to a total stranger and patriot what Cindy Sheehan did to her own son, in order to advance their own anti-war cause.
Despicable to be sure.
This once great paper now uses what remains of its ethos to peddle what is now just a leftist political agenda. And that's fine under two conditions. They need to make clear that they are reporting only leftist propaganda, and they need to ensure that they aren't hurting the innocent, twisting their words and/or slandering their names to do it.
But that would create two problems for the Times' editorial board. Their viewpoints would not be masked as "news", and their paper's circulation would drop. And they can't have either of those, can they?