Go to Michelle Malkin’s blog and read the latest reason not to trust the New York Times. A reporter interviews a woman whom he claims was convicted of having an abortion, actually was convicted of killing her newborn baby and now they refuse to print a retraction.
What is amazing about this is their willful disregard for the truth, even when presented with the facts. Even when their ombudsman brings it to their attention, they still won’t admit that what they printed was false:

The article was “as accurate as it could have been at the time it was written,” Mr. Marzorati wrote to me. “I also think that if the author and we editors knew of the contents of that third ruling, we would have qualified what we said about Ms. Climaco. Which is NOT to say that I simply accept the third ruling as ‘true’; El Salvador’s judicial system is terribly politicized.”
I asked Mr. Whitney if he intended to suggest that the office of the publisher bring the court’s findings to the attention of those readers who received the “no reason to doubt” response, or that a correction be published. The latest word from the standards editor: “No, I’m not ready to do that, nor to order up a correction or Editors’ Note at this point.”
One thing is clear to me, at this point, about the key example of Carmen Climaco. Accuracy and fairness were not pursued with the vigor Times readers have a right to expect.

No one can expect to read the Times and get the facts of a story because they withhold them for their purposes. And that’s a given in today’s environment, you can’t expect bias-free reporting.
But that’s always been the case, no newspaper, news show, not even Fox, presents just brute facts. Van Til said (and has been quoted by every professor I’ve had so far) that there is no such thing as a brute fact (uninterpreted). Everything is presented from a point of view, not only what you report but what you fail to report. All of us are driven by our presuppositions, including the media. They are just much more blatant about it today, which is good because you need to admit your presuppositions before you interpret the facts or it will lead you into all kinds of problems, like the ones we see at the AP, CBS, and the Times.