Kaus Fisks the Times

I am amazed that anyone still takes the New York Times seriously as a source of news. The extent of biased coverage in that formerly respectable rag has become so blatant that it has roused the ire even of sensible liberals like Mickey Kaus.

Mickey demolishes the Times' account of the fighting in Basra and concludes:

I'm not saying that the Times editors are predictable anti-war, anti-Bush types who reflexively leaped to a pessimistic extrapolation from the muddled Basra fighting and imposed that unsupported conclusion on their reporters. But they definitely succeeded in producing the piece that predictable anti-war types would have generated given no more information than the news that Maliki had failed to take all of Basra. Arianna Huffington could have written it from her sofa after coming back from a party. Except it would probably be more convincing.

Ouch!

Read the whole thing here -- it's a masterful vivisection of a really bad news story.