This isn't about the NYT, it's about whether or not the US is capable of, and interested in, running a PR campaign to promote its interests.

Shifting goalposts, some. My comments were clearly about the value of sources and our attitude to them, so, sorry, but for me it was about the NYT. (Or the Angry Arab or any other source). And you don't need to convert me on American PR. Or the NYT's role in it.

I did ask you to support your claim that the NYT wrote "any old nonsense" about Sharp, so thanks for providing some backing. I'm not sure it's conclusive, (there seem to be counter-arguments), but then, I'm not in this discussion to attack or defend Gene Sharp, rather to insist on standards we usually apply round here.

afew:

reports or opinions we are looking at should be judged on their merits. What we know of the source and how seriously we take it obviously enters into that judgement. But blanket dismissal or blanket approval shouldn't.