`Rubbish’ in The New York Times

Mr Brian Akre writes, on a GM blog, about his struggle trying to rebut a very (intentionally) scathing opinion/editorial piece which appeared in the New York Times. To my ears, the NYT seemed very reluctant to even entertain an opinion opposing something they've bestowed upon us through their publishing might.

FYI Blog: The Ban on `Rubbish’ in The New York Times:

Part of our response was to send a letter from my boss, Steve Harris, to the editor of the Times. Now, you’d think it would be relatively easy to get a letter from a GM vice president published in the Times after GM’s reputation was so unfairly questioned.

Apparently, the word 'rubbish' is too strong a word to use in Letters, while unfounded accusations suggesting collusion with terrorists by the "most dangerous company in the world" seems okay as long as it's written by someone at the NYT -- Tom Friedman, to name the potential libeller in question. They can certainly dish out the invective, but aren't too keen on printing the replies.

Oh, but they can print the long-winded letters of agreement, never fear.

I would link to the article, but the NYT charges stooges to look over their rubbish. I wonder if the NYT thinks their rubbish is anything but, with behaviour such as this.