Paul Krugman meditates on why people like Andrew Sullivan and Mickey Kaus write about "the liberal, Bush-hating New York Times" but never about "the liberal, Bush-hating USA Today" or "the liberal, Bush-hating Financial Times" or "the liberal, Bush-hating Wall Street Journal". Paul thinks it is because the New York Times has long been a hated part of the liberal establishment. I disagree. I think it is because Andrew Sullivan has decided to punish the New York Times for not publishing his stuff--and that the rest of the claque has fallen into line. THE LIBERAL NEW YORK TIMES For my sins, I now read four newspapers every morning. And I find myself with a puzzle. You see, we hear constantly about the liberal bias of the Times. Yet questions of factual accuracy aside, is the Times notably liberal, or notably anti-Bush, compared with other papers? Of the papers I read, I'd say that the tone of reporting is most hostile to the Bush administration in the Financial Times. Well, OK, that's a British paper, and even conservative British papers like the Times are far more critical of Bush than any major US paper. (Though what does that tell us?) But the...