I doubt the Sulzbergers consider themselves liberals. I also don't know that a disinterested party could argue the New York Times is a liberal or democratic newspaper. They came down on both sides on Vietnam; if it weren't for Judith Miller and her Cheney stenography we might not have invaded Iraq. I think they make an effort to provide a platform for thoughtful, non-insane commentary. I'm not a fan of Lindy West or Maureen Dowd just like I'm not a fan of David Brooks or Bret Stephens and I would argue they are mirror images of themselves. The problem is, when one party veers towards center and the other party skyrockets towards the land of insanity, a conscionable paper is going to show a lot less of the crazy POV. Thus, it looks like the New York Times is a "liberal" paper when they're actually trying to present an even bias.