Taking questions from readers this week at nytimes.com, Managing Editor Jill Abramson denied that the Times is a "liberal rag."
This was thequestion posed to Abramson:
Why does The Times not objectively give all (or at least two opposite) sides of issues? I am getting really frustrated and don't read The Times as carefully as in the past, because the articles - particularly the headlines - are written from a biased slant. I am a progressive by the way. Has The Times given up the idea that people expect to get facts presented in an objective manner from the news?
After going into detail of how the paper is "meticulously edited to preserve the divide between news and opinion," Abramson volunteered:
The Times news report is meticulously edited to preserve the divide between news and opinion....I'm well aware that various conservative commentators regularly and loudly denounce The Times for being "a liberal rag." It just isn't so.