NYT Editor Lies about Interior Comments

It seems like just when the New York Times has reached the lowest of the low, they seem to sink deeper into the mire as they fully demonstrate their character.

Is it any wonder why the dinosaur media is dying off? People are becoming more informed and less likely to fall for the yellow journalism of yesteryear of which the NY Times excels.

Editorial: We Don't Feel Safer

Anticipating what Barack Obama has called “common-sense gun safety laws,” the Bush administration has rushed through a last-minute gun rule that is the antithesis of common sense. The Interior Department published a rule last week that will allow loaded, concealed weapons in nearly all of this country’s national parks.

The rule, which will take effect next month, will apply to national parks in every state that has a concealed carry law, even if guns are prohibited in state parks. The administration — again — also has ignored the point of a public comment period. It received 140,000 comments on this proposed rule change, the vast majority opposing it, and still went ahead.

So this is the lie, the mystical 140,000 comments on the proposed rule change with the "vast majority" being opposed to the change in the rule.

Maybe, just maybe, there were 140,000 comments received and the Interior or some obscure rule or technological limitations limited the comments to 100,000 which happens to be the number of comments the Interior lists on the website.

Don't believe me? Look for yourself.
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=FWS-R9-NSR-2008-0062

I've scanned through a fair number of comments at random. I first read the last 10 or so, and then jumped around to a few comments on each page and I've yet to find the majority of dissenting opinions that the NYT Editor claims. So far in the more than 50 comments I've read, I've found about less than 5 opinions that support keeping the regulations as they are.

It's time we call the NYT Editor out on this...

S/he is just lucky s/he didn't try this 200 years ago. I'd wager deliberately misleading your readers in an article is something somebody might get tarred and feathered for.