New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan on Monday made a mea culpa for her past criticism of her paper's reporting on the racially-charged Ferguson case, when she called out a Times lead story for including the views of anonymous sources who supported police officer Darren Wilson's account of the shooting of Michael Brown -- a view eventually vindicated by the Obama Justice Department.

Former New York Times Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse, pontificating from her regular perch at nytimes.com, unapologetically urged the conservative Supreme Court justices to embrace left-wing emotional and political symbolism on voting rights: "Would the court really have had the nerve to do it, with the memories of the march’s veterans still echoing for the world to hear and with President Obama making perhaps the best speech of his presidency? In the full glare of that public spotlight, would there really have been no member of the Shelby County majority who might have found his way (yes, the five were all men) to a different result?"

Jodi Rudoren, the Jerusalem bureau chief for the New York Times, is often criticized as anti-Israel and hostile in particular to conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the wake of a tighter-than-expected reelection campaign and Netanyahu's controversial speech to Congress, in which he warned of the dangers of a nuclear Iran, the Times truly "doubled down" on its hostility, accusing the PM of being panicky, power-hungry, and appealing to racism.

New York Times reporter Amy Chozick played human shield on behalf of Hillary Clinton against attacks by potential Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina: "With Pointed Attacks, Getting Into Position as Party’s Foil to Clinton."

After former President George W. Bush failed to make the cut in the New York Times' photo collection of the march commemorating Selma, the Times on Monday showed its idea of political balance. It led the paper with yet another hammering of an incompetent, ultraconservative Republican Congress, while another front-page report critical of Hillary Clinton was hidden under a mild headline and peppered with anti-GOP caveats.

Frank Bruni's latest for the New York Times sported an intriguing title: "Despicable Us -- Scott Walker, the Media and the 2016 Presidential Campaign." Would Bruni be apologizing on behalf of both his paper and other outlets, which have had to retract false criticisms of Wisconsin's GOP governor? No. His media criticism was simply window dressing, an excuse to mock conservative candidates past and present.

Tuesday's New York Times featured a front-page "congressional memo" by Carl Hulse and Ashley Parker devoted to the paper's new favorite topic: How the GOP-led Congress is staining the party's reputation for 2016: "Funding Fight Poses Dangers For the G.O.P. -- Battle on Immigration Puts Security at Issue."

The New York Times kept on its old Rudy the Racist beat, using the former New York City mayor's recent remarks suggesting President Obama doesn't love America to attack him in a front-page story on Saturday: "His remarks this week mostly drew derision and outrage, and seemed to further distance Mr. Giuliani from the heroic, above-the-fray image he carefully burnished after the Sept. 11 attacks, aligning him more squarely with the hard right of the Republican Party than at any other time in his career."

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a reformist conservative and Republican presidential hopeful for 2016, has become a media target, from making a stink of Walker evading an evolution question to obsessing over his college years. Next up: Ripping Walker's proposed cuts to the state university system's operating budget. New York Times reporter Julie Bosman took advantage of Tuesday's front page to portray Walker's university cuts as tarnishing the very ideal of the university in "2016 Ambitions Seen in Bid for Wisconsin Cuts."