THis is a sweet, amusing story. An in-house critic of the NYT is asked why the NYT doesn't use the word "LIE" in news articles to describe Gonzales' sworn testimony. The short answer is this is an emotionally loaded word which belongs on the editorial page. OK, so long as the article makes it explicitly clear how Gonzales' statements contradict other evidence. Which the NYT does, once in a while, when writing about Gonzales or some other administration creep, when it fits whatever agenda the NYT is pushing. One wishes the NYT were a little more consistent, for example, when writing about the push to war in Iran, when discussing Gen. Petraeus's statements at face value, etc. It's amusing and touching how, when writing about its own coverage, the NYT always sounds like an earnest, idealistic journalism student.