Thanks for providing the link. I didn&#x27;t read every word on the page, but my thoughts:<p>1) I see nothing substantive, only nit-picking over wording. <i>In particular</i>, the NR critic often just comes up with a different way of writing the same thing, something anyone can do with any piece of writing. Much is wording that could go either way, and some depends on what the reporter actually saw. For example, maybe the reporter can&#x27;t identify who threw the rocks and so can&#x27;t say anything about them. Maybe the reporter saw a scuffle and not a riot; the NR critic doesn&#x27;t offer evidence that the statement is in error. <i>In general</i>, it&#x27;s an old propaganda technique: Just keep up a flood of criticism and people will think that some of it - just a little! - must be true. It&#x27;s not. Professionals in the field of political maniuplation really do pull this stunt on a regular basis. Look how they demonize every Democratic leader, for example (Bill Clinton, Hillary, Obama). (Left-wingers do the same, but they have far less influence than platforms like Fox News, the Wall Street Journal&#x27;s editorial page, and Rush - all the most popular in their industries.)<p>2) The National Review has an avowed agenda of pro-conservative, anti-everything else commentary. This isn&#x27;t the best source; they are going to find a way criticize the NY Times no matter what, true or not. Perhaps something from a study of journalism would be better (not that I realistically expect you to have that at your fingertips).<p>3) Reading the Israeli papers Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post, I find that if the NY Times has any bias on any issue, it&#x27;s not covering the bad things done by Israelis. The Israeli papers paint a much harsher picture of their own country. But I&#x27;m not sure I can make sense of it; of course the <i>New York</i> Times is not going to cover Israel in the same details as Israeli papers, so perhaps that explains the difference.