John Leo observes the New York Times "Swerving Around Riots":

In 1967, Newark erupted in gunfire, looting, and arson, killing 23 people and injuring 700. But 40 years later, the New York Times still is not certain that this event should properly be called a "riot." In a news article marking the anniversary, the Times reminds us that "frightened white residents" of the 1960s opted for the word "riot," while "black activists" of the period called it a "rebellion."

In a bracing slap at readers who unthinkingly might refer to several days of riotous behavior as a "riot," the Times quotes the president of the New Jersey Historical Society, Linda Epps, who says: "there is not one truth, and your view depends on your race, your age and where you lived." So what would fair-minded neutral people call it today? No need to wonder. The Times tells us: "Those seeking neutrality have come to embrace the word ‘disturbance.'" I can sympathize. Unaware that they may be giving offense, many Americans and Europeans still blithely talk about "World War II," with its aggressive and wounding reference to armed conflict. On the other hand, many German activists of the period preferred the term "unjustified trampling of the Third Reich's perfectly legitimate lebensraum and population control policies." Surely it is time for a non-provocative name for this troublesome six-year disturbance. How about "the multiple disagreements and tragic misunderstandings of 1939-1945?" Or perhaps "World Woe II," so we can retain the established initials.

Not surprisingly for a postmodern institution, the Times wants it both ways: they want to hold themselves out as The Paper Of Record, but simultaneously claim that there isn't one record of events. Pat Moynihan's famous quote is, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts". By stating (via their choice of quotes) that "there is not one truth, and your view depends on your race, your age and where you lived", (and Jim McGreevy would add sexual orientation to that list) the Times believes that everyone is entitled to their own facts. That's an awfully strange way to run a newspaper.

At least from my point of view.