Ever since Gail Collins wrote her infamous editorial blasting Venezuela’s battered opposition for crying fraud in the 2004 recall referendum, I have had a change of opinion, to say the least, about the New York Times. I didn’t have it before – for a rightwinger, I have a remarkably high tolerance for left bias in the media. It’s ok, I can read between lines. But ever since Venezuela, I draw the line at the NYT as a reliable news source. I consider it no such thing.

But big deal, it’s not news that another libertarian dislikes the NYT.

What’s really news is that people who lean center-to-left are souring on the NYT, as a news source, too, particularly in its Latin American coverage. Two bloggers in two days have made strong observations against its coverage, pointing out obvious problems that distort the picture we get from the Times on Latin America. They’re both worth a look here.

Randy Paul at Beautiful Horizons notes a series of problems in chief Brazil correspondent for the NYT, Larry Rohter, notably that he makes sweeping generalizations, seems to have a pattern of antipathy toward Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (Rohter once reported gossip from Lula’s enemies calling him ‘a drunk’ as straight news, that’s the level we are at), and seems to be most interested in declaring his own opinion. He cites solid examples.

Francisco Toro at Caracas Chronicles notes that NYT’s Andean correspondent, Juan Forero, seems to report the obvious – and very disturbing facts about the growing tyranny of Hugo Chavez – but doesn’t report the implications. Toro compares him to someone who presents all the materials for a cake but doesn’t bother to make the cake. It’s a very good post.

Conclusion: With one reporter making sweeping generalizations and another reporter avoiding obvious generalizations, there is something going on here like subjective bias. Don’t like a guy, then declare him no good, and never mind the facts. Do like a guy, then grudgingly report the facts but deny the obvious conclusion that comes from the facts. This is how bias works.