...so they've taken to editing the New York Times. Note that they have only objected to the headline and not to the story. I reckon that they long ago realised that no one who has ever voted for them has ever read deeper than the sub-heading to a story. I particularly love that in her written statement Ms. Perino describes of the offending line, "White House Role Was Wider Than It Said", as "pernicious". Is this description of this story, on which she refuses to comment, truly evil?
They do operate under a curious moral code.