I asked if ANYONE had questioned the NYT's reports of what some of the people in the revolution had said in interviews.

They are very net-savvy young people so even they, especially since Mubarak left, are quite likely to read the NYT stuff on their revolution online.

Re the NYT, as afew pointed out:

The Angry Arab News Service

Comrade Talal sent me this (I cite with his permission): "I have to say that Tony Shadid made a huge difference to the coverage by the NYT of the recent Arab revolt. At his worst he was good, and at his best outstanding. The other NYT correspondents did not come close, and I am sure he would have been even better if the infamous NYT editors had let him loose."

So - despite the "infamous NYT editors" (a judgement I agree with) - Angry Arab is passing on the word there can at least be some respectable material on the NYT.

I'm sure that Angry Arab will be delighted to know that his own biography doesn't count as evidence of achievement.

I'm sure you'll continue to ignore relevant evidence such as Sharp's bio that doesn't fit your conspiracy theory.

Still - I expect he can console himself with the thought that if he was writing for the NYT you'd believe everything he said, based on its proven expertise, impeccable track record, and convincing contrition when caught lying.

If you don't have any arguments resort to caricature again. No, I don't believe everything that's in the NYT, but then I don't adopt the stupid position of rejecting everything that's in it either. You haven't shown that the NYT has got anything wrong in this case, so again you just caricature what it says.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.