Your "liberal" press: it took the NYTimes a week to correct Hillary smear

[johnfunk]

... specifically, their promotion of a book that has proven to be poorly sourced:

Editors' Note

An article last Sunday about books of collected quotations from public figures compared a new one about Hillary Rodham Clinton with less recent books about President Bush and Donald H. Rumsfeld.

...because of an editing error, the article did not make it clear until the 16th paragraph that many quotations in the book had been culled from disputed sources or unverifiable private conversations. (The Bush and Rumsfeld books, by contrast, included mostly comments made in front of crowds or at news conferences, often on videotape.) The distinction should have been made as soon as the example was cited.

... but it wasn't, because of the Times' institutional bias against liberals in general, and the Clintons, because they are still vested in the third-rate "Whitewater" reporting by Don van Natta and every other rube "journalist" else who was duped by David Bossie and the 82nd Klintoon-haters Media Infantry.

And why haven't you reviewed the book in question on Amazon... or at least found the reviews helpful or not?

[TheSubliminableKid]

1. Typical Times mendacity!

They've hated the Clintons since 1988. And don't get me started about Howell "Howler" Raines!

I think I'm gonna write me a review...