GOOD QUESTION: “Why are we supposed to believe the Times about stories to which they are not a party when the paper so boldly lies about a story the facts of which are 100% within its control?”
UPDATE: Ron Coleman thinks this question is unfair:
To the contrary, in the law at least — and I think in life, too — we expect almost everyone with an interest in a situation to be biased, on some level, as to how they report it. It is a presumption that colors how a finder of fact weighs the testimony of an interested person. In contrast, when it comes to “stories to which they are not a party,” peoples’ bias has to be proved, either directly or by implication.
Certainly, nobody thinks the Times is unbiased here. But stuff like this — or, more notably, the bit about not being able to reach Miller for comment on a story about her departure — the New York Observer seemed to manage — is pretty hard to ignore.