And when you want your news untainted by facts, there's always Dr. Roy.

Honestly, it's like taking the occasional steel-toed boot to a mentally-retarded cocker spaniel, but there's something childishly satisfying in ripping Blogging Tory Dr. Roy Eappen a new orifice every so often. Like when he writes something as hopelessly dishonest as this:

Another Mea Culpa from NYT

The New York Times admits it gave Moveon.org an undeserved discount and that allowing the despicable moveon.org ad violated their own policy. Unfair and biased, as the NYT usually is,

Really? They "admitted" that, did they? Let's follow the doctor's own hyperlink, where we find this:

The Public Editor
Betraying Its Own Best Interests

By CLARK HOYT
Published: September 23, 2007

FOR nearly two weeks, The New York Times has been defending a political advertisement that critics say was an unfair shot at the American commander in Iraq.

But I think the ad violated The Times’s own written standards, and the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to.

Wow, that's not the Times "admitting" anything whatsoever; instead, that's an opinion piece by its public editor. (A disclaimer at the bottom of that posted piece even makes that abundantly clear: "The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own." One wonders what part of that so confused the good doctor.)

And as for Hoyt corroborating the accusations of left-wing, preferential treatment, well, Greg Sargent over at TPM's "The Horse's Mouth" deals with that:

New York Times Public Editor Dodges Central Question At Heart Of GOP Attack On His Own Paper
September 24, 2007 -- 1:54 PM EST // //

Clark Hoyt, the public editor of The New York Times, has now weighed in with a long piece on the whole controversy involving the MoveOn ad in his own paper attacking Mighty Scholar-Warrior Petraeus. It's a deeply disappointing article. He takes a very high-horse tone in the piece, rapping The Times for violating the paper's "own written standards," which say that generally the paper doesn't publish ads containing personal attacks.

Unfortunately, Hoyt doesn't weigh in on the question that's at the center of this whole controversy: Whether or not The Times gave a discount to MoveOn because the paper's editorial stance is antiwar...

Hoyt gives a great deal of ink to the Republicans making this charge. But what does Hoyt himself think of these charges, now that he's investigated the situation? Here's the sum total of his judgment on the matter, buried at the end of the piece:

The Times bends over backward to accommodate advocacy ads, including ads from groups with which the newspaper disagrees editorially.

...and that's it. Hoyt almost certainly knows how ridiculous the charge of ideological collusion is. Why didn't he say so, then?

By failing to reach for a conclusion about the question at the center of this whole controversy, Hoyt succeeded only in giving more ammo to right-wing critics -- and let down the paper's readers, who deserve to hear a journalism expert like him pronounce judgment on the assumptions and questions at the core of this whole assault on the paper. Hoyt squandered a chance to use his platform to say something meaningful about the whole affair, instead focusing solely on a bunch of peripheral details about ad rates and guidelines.

Blogging Tory Dr. Roy: When you have an attention span of about three sentences, but that's all you really need to corroborate your neo-con world view. It's just easier that way.