(Earth to New York Times editor: No one is a Christian because of ethnicity or location or opposition to abortion. Christianity is a matter of belief in the Christ shown in the New Testament, and nothing in the New Testament justifies the killing of innocent people by individuals. Besides, would you write about "liberal extremists" and highlight a quotation from an ignorant person who supported the alleged killer of a pro-life leader by saying, "He's a liberal, and I'm a liberal"?)

Many other newspapers, such as USA Today, did not display such ignorance. The Los Angeles Times, on its toes after editor John Carroll's wake-up call (WORLD, June 7), ran six Rudolph-related articles during the first three days of June. None of them suggested a Christian/terrorism connection. Carroll had complained in a May 22 memo to Times section editors that he was "concerned about the perception -- and the occasional reality -- that the Times is a liberal, ‘politically correct' newspaper."

Carroll also wrote, "We may happen to live in a political atmosphere that is suffused with liberal values (and is unreflective of the nation as a whole), but we are not going to push a liberal agenda in the news pages of the Times." That's a great declaration of intent, and one its East Coast brethren should agree to as well.

As it is, The Washington Post will occasionally offer corrections of misspellings -- my recent favorite is, "The last name of National Spelling Bee winner Sai R. Gunturi was misspelled ..." -- but not misthinkings.