I think where I differ with you is that I don't interpret these actions as ideological actions. They are exactly what they seem, an attempt to sell newspapers to their constituency, or more specifically, sell advertising to merchants which sell to those readers.

You're more generous than I am. A good test of this theory is to actually examine the coverage of these issues.

How many "sensational" stories have you seen that make the war or the administration look good? The Zarqawi story was covered, but many media outlets dismissed this victory as of no importance. In fact, you rarely see anything in the New York Times, L. A. Times, or other mainstream newspapers about victories. Go to the small papers, the local papers, and you start to see the good news.

Ever see a big story about a Medal of Honor winner? With how it was won? A local paper will have it. The big papers will tell you how the heroes in this war aren't really heroes at all.

In short, if it was just about selling papers, the sensationalism would be a bit more balanced.

If it was about selling papers, it would bother the New York Times that they're losing readers.

The New York Times has a specific political agenda, and it's become more obvious now that there are other sources for news.