We recall that the New York Times even failed to publish the Danish cartoons that caused the most riotous response to images in the history of the world, excusing their cowardice and dhimmitude to Muslims by writing that there was no need to reprint them, "since the cartoons are so easy to describe in words."

See the photo above? What would the world have said of the New York Times if in 1945, instead of printing this photo, the New York Times instead, out of respect for the sensitivities of Nazis, merely mentioned that "US soldiers entering the death camps saw dead bodies stacked everywhere."

Sure it's easy to describe in words, but does it convey the whole truth, the horrible inhumanity of it all? Is that a valid excuse, that if it's easy to describe in words there's no need to publish the image?

It seems as if the owners of the paper, as they lean more and more to the left, have become more and more despicable, deceptive, and (in regard to the Danish cartoons) dhimmitudinous.

If you are the kind of person who doesn't read blogs and instead relies only on the 'respected' and 'authoritative' media such as the New York Times, you wouldn't have heard about the outrageous Van Jones affair because the New York Times was too busy covering other 'news'.

The New York Post, Van Jones — unfit for print

"This is not an excuse," the managing editor of the New York Times said after offering the following excuse for completely missing the Van Jones story, except in a blog post: "Our Washington bureau was somewhat short-staffed during the height of the pre-Labor Day vacation period."

Here's how long-staffed the New York Times actually is. Long after Glenn Beck reported — back in July — that Jones was history's first communist czar, and even after Gateway Pundit reported, on Sept. 3, that Jones had signed a wackadoodle 9/11 "truther" petition, The Times sent two reporters to Boston (in a story published Friday, Sept. 4) to pre-report the non-story of Joseph P. Kennedy II's run for Ted Kennedy's seat. (He later said he wasn't interested. Also, the picture of Joseph the Times ran was actually of his brother Max.)

On Sept. 5 (still no word about Van Jones being a Red Green), the Times' crack political team informed us that the Naked Cowboy was dropping out of the mayoral race.

On Sept. 6, The Times broke the story that "Diane Sawyer, coolly regal, is a born anchor, albeit in an ever-evaporating sea" and, under a piece headlined "Reading Underground," gave us all food for thought with the subhed, "Even while pressed against strangers, even while stumbling home from a party, New Yorkers read on the subway."

Granted, the Times must devote a lot of personpower to its vast corrections column. But if it is so flush that it can afford to hire, like the boy with the shovel who follows the elephant in the parade, a personal fact checker for TV critic Alessandra Stanley, surely it can scrounge up an intern to report that there's a communist truther working as the president's green jobs czar, or that a congressman was demanding his resignation (Sept. 4).

Jill Abramson, the managing editor, admitted only to being "a beat behind" the story but added that the paper had caught up — after the saga was over. The EMS equivalent of this statement would be, "Sorry I didn't take your 911 call for four days. At least I was in time for the funeral."

Although Abramson's excuse was not an excuse, she proceeded to offer another one: "Mr. Jones was not a high-ranking official."

Oh. And here I was, thinking that he was "one of Mr. Obama's top advisers," as I was told by, well, The Times, on its Caucus blog on Sept. 5. Confusing, confusing.

Only in Timesland can you be in charge of doling out $80 billion in contracts ("A Small White House Program" — The Times' John M. Broder, on Sept. 6) and be less important than the Naked Cowboy.

The Times was aware of the story, knew it was bigger than most of the stuff it puts in the paper every day, and had plenty of resources to cover it.

But The Times purposely ignored it because it was hoping that the story would go away, because it likes people like Comrade Jones and was hoping he wouldn't be forced out. The Times doesn't like people like Glenn Beck and didn't want him to be able to claim Jones's scalp. The Times' prejudice blinded it to the fact that Jones' fall became obvious on Friday, when a White House spokesman refused to defend him.

Newspaper of record? The Times isn't so much a newspaper as a clique of high school girls sending IMs to like-minded friends about their feuds and faves and raves and rants. OMFG you guys! It's no more objective than Beck is.

My friend B.W. sent me an email today telling me he no longer buys the New York Times: "... the final breaking point for me was a few years ago, when there was a story about the Israeli day parade in NY. There were over 100,000 people there. The Times ran a photo of about 6 pro-Palestinian protestors and those 6 people were a big part of the Times story, not the other 100,000. That was the last time that I ever bought the Times.

It is easy to understand why they are losing so much money. There are many tens of thousands of others like me who were once dedicated Times readers, who now view it as thrash."

Sad, it was once the paper of record, now it's not even worth the paper it prints.

Disclaimer: Regarding dhimmitudinous; yes I made it up from the already existing word dhimmitude, which means "denoting an attitude of concession, surrender and appeasement towards Islamic demands."