I think this article has woken some people up to what a lot of us have known since 2003 (or earlier), namely: Don't believe everything you read in the NYT. In

I think this article has woken some people up to what a lot of us have known since 2003 (or earlier), namely: Don't believe everything you read in the NYT. In case anyone is unaware, it was recently revealed that when the government announces that "X militants were killed", that the word militant actually refers to any military age male that is killed, and does not imply there is any evidence to suggest the person was anything other than completely innocent. Furthermore, the NYT continues to parrot the government claims, and to use the word militant in it's reporting, despite this revelation, without mentioning that in most cases there is literally no evidence at all. In fact, the NYT public editor recently wrote an article complaining about this fact. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/public-editor/questions-on-drones-unanswered-still.html?src=twr&pagewanted=all&_r=1&#38 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/public-editor/questions-on...; http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/15/drones-brookings-media http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/15/drones-b...