Hugh Hewitt asks, “Why are we supposed to believe the Times about stories to which they are not a party when the paper so boldly lies about a story the facts of which are 100% within its control?” Glenn Reynolds thinks that’s a good question.
Is it, though? To the contrary, in the law at least — and I think in life, too — we expect almost everyone with an interest in a situation to be biased, on some level, as to how they report it. It is a presumption that colors how a finder of fact weighs the testimony of an interested person. In contrast, when it comes to “stories to which they are not a party,” people’s bias has to be proved, either directly or by implication.
I know that sounds flat-footed, but Hewitt’s criticism proves too much, and it proves it regarding not only the Times, but everyone and every institution regarding self-examination.
UPDATE: Thanks for clicking here from Instapundit. After reading the excerpt there, I did correct “peoples'” to “people’s”; I regret the word choice now but here we are. (See how unbiased I am?)