At Least The New York Times

isn’t afraid to criticize itself.  Public editor Clark Hoyt goes at it:

most readers saw it as something else altogether. They saw it as a story about illicit sex. And most were furious at The Times…

A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide.

By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.