The arrogance of the New York Times knows no bounds

I have long maintained that the New York Times has stopped being a newspaper and become a large propaganda organ--mainly for itself. In spite of tremendous repeated errors, horrific bias and a rapidly declining readership, the Times and its leadership remains under the impression that its...ahem...stuff don't stink.

Need proof? Take it from the big mouth of Executive Editor Bill Keller:

"Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause."

WHAT?

Did that jackass compare the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people with the self-inflicted demise of a crappy newspaper? Yep, he sure did.

I have a few questions for Mr. Keller. Questions, in case he'd forgotten, are what reporters are supposed to ask when they don't have their ideologically slanted conclusions made before they start writing their story.

Question 1: What is a "high-minded cause"? Is it something that all people should feel morally bound to support? Is it something decreed by a superior entity? Or is it something that only the American intelligencia should be working for, as the rest of us are too stupid?

Question 2: Do you really have such a pathetically poor opinion of the people of Darfur? Are you that self-important, or are you a bigot?

Question 3: Don't you realize that if your product stopped being garbage, you'd have a legitimate chance of survival?

Question 4: Do you realize you have your head up your ass? Just wondering.