Once told someone who was bitching about Rush Limbaugh

that if people hadn't thought the news being put out by the networks was skewed at best and sometimes flat-out bullshit, Limbaugh would mostly likely be(happily) a sports broadcaster somewhere.  But people knew that a lot of the news they were hearing was skewed in many cases, and far too often reported by the idea of "This is what we want you to hear and think."  Which brings me to the subject of the moment:  The New York effing Times.  "Ah, those Jews weren't actually there back then, at least they can't prove it to my satisfaction, so hand it to the Palistinians.  And hey, if the Jews weren't actually there..."

Saw this at Insty, who had this(yeah, I believe it):

[Oren] called the New York Times editorial-page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, after the paper published an op-ed by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in which Abbas startlingly claimed the Arabs had accepted the UN Partition Plan of 1947. The conversation went thus:
“When I write for the Times, fact checkers examine every word I write,” I began. “Did anybody check that Abbas has his facts exactly backward?”

“That’s your opinion,” Rosenthal replied.

“I’m an historian, Andy, and there are opinions and there are facts. That the Arabs rejected partition and the Jews accepted it is an irrefutable fact.”

“In your view.”

“Tell me, on June 6, 1944, did Allied forces land or did they not land on Normandy Beach?”

Rosenthal…replied, “Some might say so.”

Our Professional Media.  No wonder they hate people like Sharyl Attkisson so much; they're actual reporters.