The idea that readers of the New York Times would need some kind of paternalist guideline on which side to choose in this conflict is quite hilarious. The NY Ti

The idea that readers of the New York Times would need some kind of paternalist guideline on which side to choose in this conflict is quite hilarious. The NY Times is reporting on the issue, and there are two sides to it, the line of the Chinese government and the line of the protesters. I really don't think there is any doubt among NY Times readers as to which of the two value systems they support, and if there was, it wouldn't be the job of the NY Times to tell them. Editorials will reflect individual journalist's stance towards the conflict, though. That's why I personally find them boring and rarely read them.