Of course it is, and it serves as yet another reminder as to why newspapers publish unsigned editorials - in most cases they are poorly reasoned and nobody wants to take responsibility for them. Today's New York Times provides a case in point,
After weeks of politically damaging delay, John Kerry finally seems to have found his voice on what ought to be the central issue of this year's election: the mismanaged war in Iraq and how to bring it to an acceptable conclusion. It was none too soon. While the fate of the Iraqi people, the success of the war on terrorism and America's international standing have all been teetering ominously in the balance, Mr. Kerry has allowed the presidential campaign to veer off into squabbles about events long past - like the candidates' 30-year-old war records - and about Mr. Kerry's confusing and sometimes contradictory recent statements on foreign policy.Oh, sure. It is Mr. Kerry's fault that when he gave the media the opportunity to act responsibly in relation to those remote events, the media instead gave undivided attention to the rantings and ravings of the now-discredited Swift Boat Liars.
But I'm sure the Times is only speaking for itself, and that if we go back to its coverage of recent months we will see it repeatedly decrying the irrelevant distraction of those attack ads, as opposed to providing extensive coverage of the allegations. Right? (How short do they think our memories are?)