Well, that's certainly striking. I agree with the thesis, but the way he presents it illustrates the problem.<p>It's completely impolitic. That's deliberate. The entire point is to reject the mainstream journalistic approach of being neutral to a fault, to avoid even the appearance of bias.<p>But the New York Times is going to be accused of bias anyway. Their old habit was designed for a world that no longer exists. It's not clear that it ever existed, but there was a time when the New York Times' approach worked better.<p>Now, I agree with the article: it's time to start using words like "liar" and "wrong". They hate being judgmental; they want you to be able to figure it out for yourself. But it's clear that a lot of people aren't figuring it out, and that this presents a genuine threat.<p>The NYT lacks language to deal with that. The language used in this article is, I think, not the correct one either. I concur with the article nonetheless, that Joe Kahn does need to go looking for one.