Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette points out some glaring examples of misreporting from the factually challenged but accurate. Kevin of Command T.O.C. immediately jumps on Greyhawk in comments. (It must be that Kevin is focusing heavily on Mudville these days; I am often the subject of his diatribes, too, but not so much lately.)

As is his wont, Kevin misses the point of Greyhawk's post.

The many miscellaneous inaccuracies themselves suggest the reporters and editors at the Times are far less interested in reporting than they are in finding supporting evidence for what they want to portray.

That is the point, that they bend news or pick and choose data points to fit the what I've previously described as "the template."

The country is in chaos, sectarian violence is on the rise, Civil War is either imminent or upon them.

Only, as Greyhawk points out, reporting from the military and Iraqi government officials involve strongly suggest that the violence described was by insurgents "portraying" sectarian violence. (In other words, Sunni on Sunni to look like Shia on Sunni.)

Kevin can argue that "dead is dead" all he wants, the reality is the NY Times used that violence to support a report that spoke of heightened "sectarian violence."

And of course that is the point. The NY Times reporters and editors involved have sought to portray reality in Iraq in a certain way, then slant their reporting, fact selection, storyboards, etc., to support that "template."

And when the underlying facts are wrong, since news stories aren't supposed to be subjective or include editorializing, they correct the underlying fact but can't correct the subjective tone and thematic "under-story."

And reliable "useful idiots" can criticize the criticizing of the NY Times as harping on trivialities.