The propaganda of the New York Times: Neil MacFarquhar

I have criticized MacFurquhar's coverage of the Middle East before (and he once responded by sending me insults).  But this article covering the speech by Ahmadinajad is a classic case of the propaganda of the New York Times.  In other words, the New York Times does not even try to feign objectivity on the Middle East anymore, and its reporters are now licensed to engage in blatant propaganda about Israeli interests.  Look at this most irresponsible propaganda piece.  I have mocked and criticized the kooky pronouncements of Ahmadinajad (mostly in Arabic but also in English, here).  But this is outrageous journalism--if it is journalism.  First, the headline.  In the printed hard copy of the paper, the headline was "Iran Leader Says US Planned 9/11 Attacks." When I read that yesterday, i could not believe it and immediately planned to blog about it.  I went to the internet version and saw that the paper (typically) sneakily changed the headline.  Why?  Because the headline was quite inaccurate.  I dislike Ahmadinajad and I dislike kooky conspiracy theories about Sep. 11, but certainly the speech (which I watched live) did not say what the headline alleged.  I don't know what Ahmadinajad thinks in his mind, but he offered three "theories" about Sep. 11 and called for an investigation.  So in terms of reckless journalism, the headline certainly was a classic example.   And then MacFarquhar, began the piece with this about his speech:  "made a series of incendiary remarks."  Look at those words.  Israeli leaders consistently threaten Lebanon and the Palestinian with destruction and bombings, do you think a New York Times reporter would ever dare to describe Israeli hateful statements as "incendiary"?  But you know what?  I like this.  I like that the New York Times does not even pretend to be a professional media organization anymore.  It is all a joke.