Well, I think this should just about do it as far as the NYT's "special relationship with power" is concerned:

The New York Times first debated publishing a story about secret eavesdropping on Americans as early as last fall, before the 2004 presidential election.

So the times had a story about what lawyers are widely interpereting as a criminal act by the president, committed while president (so it's not some old-ass DUI we're talking about here), an offense which people like John Dean -- Richard Nixon's Attorny General -- are calling impeachable, and they decided not to run with it prior to the election.

Ladies and gentlemen, behold the liberal media. This is really pretty ridiculous.

And as for our government and its spying agenda? What terrible threat is in the crosshairs now? Oh yeah, of course! The Gays.

A February protest at NYU was also listed, along with the law school's LGBT advocacy group OUTlaw, which was classified as "possibly violent" by the Pentagon. A UC-Santa Cruz "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" protest, which included a gay kiss-in, was labeled as a "credible threat" of terrorism.

Thank god the Pentagon is on top of that. The gay conspiracy has always supported Al-Qaeda, who promise to promote their "homosexual agenda" throughout the middle east. Oh wait, what? Where is the truth?

Certainly not in the mouth of the President:

4/20/2004
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.

6/9/2005
These wiretaps must be approved by a judge, and they have been used for years to catch drug dealers and other criminals. Yet, before the Patriot Act, agents investigating terrorists had to get a separate authorization for each phone they wanted to tap.

For those just joining us, this is pretty much the exact opposite of what Bush said the other day. He knew these were lies when he said them. He personally authorized the program for warrantless wiretaps.

All this is sort of sad too, because in real terms all this does is fuel the crisis of confidence. Bush isn't going to resign, and the NYT won't really change, but both will take hits to their credibility. Who can you trust?

Maybe there's a silver lining. Maybe after this we'll really get some transparency in government. It seems clear that the 4th estate isn't fulfilling its role here, and maintaining a democracy requires more than just a vote every couple of years. Maybe we have to hit rock bottom before we can admit we have a problem here and turn it around.