Instapundit notes just now that he…

” got an email from a journalist asking me to assess Bill Keller’s Times so far. I’d say the answer is — not really any better than under Howell Raines.”

Big freakin shock, Glenn. Remember, I’ve already addresed this issue, back in June of Last Year

I said at the time:

“Raines was part of the problem, granted… as too was his crony, Boyd. I can see, even, an argument suggesting that Lelyveld is a solution to the problem.

However, unlike the defenders of the Times, (and for that matter, the Times itself) let’s be honest, here.  Sulzberger himself is the biggest problem, and that situation doesn’t look to change very soon.

(Times Owner Arhtur) Sulzberger has always held the conviction that journalism is about helping people and building what they consider a better society.  If you think this isn’t the prevailing nonsense in the news world today, ask anyone coming out of journalism schools why THEY’RE doing what they’re doing, and they’ll tell you ‘to make a difference’, not to “report the news”. Simply and fairly reporting the news, and perhaps offering an even-handed comment on it, is too dull an assignment, for those on this ‘great mission’.  Once again, the Times shows up as the largest example of this kind of bias inducement. This is not something that’s just cropped up since Raines took over the ummm… errr…… reins. (Yeah, I know… sorry)”

Brent Bozell as you might expect, agreed with me back then:

“Now that Mr. Raines and Mr. Boyd have resigned, Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. has a crucial decision to make. He can either continue to use the Times to promote an arrogant, left-wing advocacy agenda or he can return to the news. “The New York Times’ return to respectability is dependent upon whether it presents the news in an accurate, evenhanded manner. ‘All the news that’s fit to print’ is meaningless if the reporting is skewed to promote a liberal agenda.

Mr. Sulzberger has an opportunity to start afresh with new editors, and we hope he takes full advantage of it.”

I think it’s clear he never did, and thereby where this bias is coming from. And from that we can figure the situation is not going to change in the near future.  As such, the NYT is a lost cause so long as Sulzberger is running the place.

So, I take the stand that I flat out refuse to use it as a source in this blog.