A Jan. 28 NewsBusters post by Warner Todd Huston ascribes the views of a single article to that of the entire New York Times: "Through the pessimistically, penumbrous pen of Parag Khanna, the New York Times has declared that the U.S.A. is finished. Yes, we have lost our 'global hegemony' and we will find that by 2016, 'America’s standing in the world remains in steady decline.' "
But the Times didn't just run a single article by neoconservative William Kristol; it hired him as a regular columnist. Shouldn't that mean, using Huston's logic, that the Times is a hotbed of neoconservatism?
Or is it just that Huston is utterly obtuse on the concept of a newspaper permitting the airing of diverse views? He is obtuse is so many other areas...