And a second question: Why is it that when liberals and Democrats raise concerns about Times reporting, Public Editor Hoyt seems to start his analysis from a defend-the-Times perspective? It's a troubling pattern.

Media Matters' Matt Gertz this weekend already raised lots of important questions about Hoyt's Sunday response to the controversy still brewing over the Times' big scoop last week that CT. Democrat Richard Blumenthal had exaggerated his Vietnam War military record. The problem for the Times has been the growing perception that the newspaper had its collective thumb on the scale when it wrote up the Blumenthal story, and that the Times, for instance, purposely hid some exculpatory information that would have undercut the allegations lodged against Blumenthal.

That's a big newsroom no-no. You're not supposed to sit on important facts for fear it would make your scoop seem less scoopy.

That's one of the issues Hoyt addressed in his Sunday column, and I'd simply focus attention on the final two paragraphs of Hoyt's piece [emphasis added]:

Were there flaws in the story? Yes: It should have said more about how it originated; it should have provided mitigating information far higher; it should have noted that his official biography was accurate. The full video should have been posted so readers could make their own judgments.

It is true that Blumenthal often correctly described his military experience. But he has sometimes flatly misrepresented it — a new example surfaced Thursday — and that matters. How much, the voters of Connecticut will decide. The Times was right to give them the information.

Am I missing something here? Reviewing the Times' performance with the controversial Blumenthal story, Hoyt concluded the paper made four substantial procedural mistakes in putting the story together. (And yes, all four mistakes harmed Blumenthal, the Democrat.) But then in the very next breath Hoyt announced that the Times did its readers a service by publishing the story.

This defies logic.

Hoyt's job is to police the newspaper's journalism; to act as an independent newsroom cop and to make sure journalists there adhere to the highest possible standard. And for the Blumenthal story, Hoyt concluded that all kinds of corners were cut. Consequently, Blumenthal was treated quite unfairly by the newspaper, which, according to Hoyt, should have done this, this, this, and this.

But despite all those sins of omission-- omissions which if included in the original blockbuster would have severely undercut the article's newsworthiness-- Hoyt essentially gives the newsroom his seal of approval.

That's bad enough. But as I mentioned, there's also a pattern emerging of Hoyt giving the all-clear signal for shoddy Times journalism that rankles liberals and Democrats. In fact, this is the second time this year the Times has been attacked by the political left for clearly questionable reporting, Hoyt has addressed the issue, and Hoyt seemed to begin from the premise of, how can I defend the Times' reporting? (This past winter it was the Times' ACORN train wreck performance, which Hoyt practically engineered.)

And yes, this is the same Hoyt who devoted an entire column last year to scold the Times news team for not reacting quickly and urgently enough to partisan, right-wing stories born on the Internet. i.e. When conservatives complained about Times coverage, Hoyt was very quick to scold the newsroom. But twice now in recent months when liberals have scolded the newspaper, Hoyt went out of his way to defend the newsroom when it clearly was in the wrong. Even after Hoyt conceded the newspaper was in the wrong.

So yes, I remain puzzled: What exactly are Clark Hoyt's standards at the NY Times?