The first time I ever heard of the New York Times as basically a national newspaper, and actually comprehending its status as one, was in the home of my aunt and uncle in Los Angeles when my uncle brought in two newspapers. One was local news and the one he opened first and voraciously began to read was The Times. My aunt and uncle lived and worked in New York City for all of 20 years. To them, it is a local paper. My first time reading it was today when I flipped through my online subscription. I would agree with Daniel Okrent, author of this article, that it is a liberal newspaper. I think the newspaper is liberal almost to a fault. If this was the only source of news to a person, I think that person would be denied the crucial “two sides to every story” saying and would therefore be deprived of knowing or thinking any differently then that of the authors of the pieces they have read. The example that Okrent used proved that when it comes to hot social issues, like gay marriage, with the exception of one article, The Times only propagated “a tone of cheerleading.” I think that readers of The Times should read on, enjoy and soak up everything good about the newspaper, but to keep in mind that there is another side and to explore it.