I disagree. Obviously. Rather, and the whole Killian reporting staff, leapt at the chance to run a politically motivated "news" report several weeks before the election. They were spoonfed false documents, researched nothing based on the assumption that rumors Bush had been AWOL and hidden away in the Air National Guard by his father, and over-salivated at the idea. Their motivation was to attack a candidate for their own political goals. Straw man? Hardly. It was a great example of the press being exposed/attacked when they deserved it. They wanted to run a story they liked. They didn't want one that they didn't like. If only there had been more daring and honest reporters when JFK ran for president, maybe a couple of hundred American service men and women would not be casualties of the Vietnam War.
Does the NY Times deserve to be attacked for reporting what is on the internet, even if it is politically damaging or embarrassing? I guess if some kid gets the news that their mom or dad took a bullet to the cranium, then maybe. Maybe not. I think it is better to know about a problem, especially when there is no question that the info is legit.
