The Times had one bad reporter with no previous misdeeds, whom they promptly fired when his falsified stories were discovered. The Times also hasn't openly admitted partisanship and then tried to justify it by claiming to provide the other side of objective facts that should never HAVE a "side". Is 2+2=4 a God fearing Republican or a godless commie Democrat? The Times doesn't give fear-mongering demagogues a venue to promote conspiratorial absurdities so ridiculous and extreme that even far left Democratic Congressmen have to point out, in the middle of campaign rallies, that Republicans aren't as evil as Republicans represent them to be. And the Times doesn't screw up, deliberately or otherwise, nearly as often as Fox does, but when they have they've promptly fired those responsible instead of waiting until they become such a laughingstock for those of EVERY political persuasion that major gaffes cease to be noteworthy.

That's not to say I'm endorsing or defending the Times, per se, but that the comparison is erroneous, no more than another example of right wing media loyalists defending their "news" sources by saying that "the other side" (even though there isn't one) is just as bad. Does that mean Al Gore can eat children because ManBearPig did it first?