How many of you read the New York Times? A show of hands please. OK. Now, how many of you who raised their hands are journalists? Uh huh. I thought so. Just about all of you did. I'm guessing that journalists, be it print or broadcast, read the Times like Christian fundamentalists read the Bible.

I object to this. In my opinion, the Times can no longer righteously be called the "paper of record." There have been positive changes at the Times as a result of the Jayson Blair fiasco. But the real changes must be made in the way the paper is perceived by its readers. If scandals like this teach us nothing else, it should make clear the need to get our news from multiple sources. Putting your information eggs in any one basket makes no sense in the age of the internet. Why continue to put the Times up on a pedestal, gauging the newsworthiness of any story by whether or not it appears there? Some broadcast news and probably some print outlets continue to do this. I would like to think its influence in cyberspace is more restrained, but who knows?

Don't misunderstand me. The Times is a great paper. Columnists such as Thomas Friedman, William Safire and even the occasionally shrill Maureen Dowd alone make the paper worth reading. But it shouldn't be the barometer of news.

The Blair fiasco could've happened anytime, anywhere at any news organization. This Slate article runs down the major problems other papers have had with bad journalism. The key to its prevention- and insulation from its consequences- is exposure to a wide swath of press, television, and internet sources. Not soley the New York Times.