 Who would the author most likely side with?
Dole vs. the Times For several weeks now, pundits have debated how Bob Dole would exit the stage. Dole, it appears, will end his political career raging against the New York Times . They don't put any anti-Clinton stories in the New York Times . Only anti-Dole stories in the New York Times ." "This country belongs to the people, not the New York Times ." On Sunday (the day the Times endorsed Clinton), Dole called the paper "the apologist for President Clinton for the last four years and an arm of the Democratic National Committee." In a CNN interview broadcast Monday, Dole said the Times "might as well be part of the Democratic Party. ... The Times has reacted to this assault by highhandedly quoting everything and explaining none of it, leaving its readers baffled as to why the Republican nominee is so upset at the paper. According to Katharine Seelye, who has covered Dole since the beginning of his campaign, the complaints date from December 1995, when Dole staff members first protested that she had misunderstood the candidate's position on abortion. The real bitterness, however, began in May, when the paper played what Dole aides billed as a major address about welfare on Page 19 of the business section. Since then, campaign honchos have peppered the paper's reporters and editors with constant phone calls and letters complaining about unfair treatment. Reporters traveling with Dole caught a glimpse of the enmity Oct. 9, when Nelson Warfield, Dole's press secretary, staged a public confrontation with Seelye. The candidate, Warfield told reporters waiting to board the campaign plane, had just come from an appearance on G. Gordon Liddy's radio show. Then, on the plane, Warfield walked back to the press section and grandly served Seelye with a copy of a letter from Communications Director John Buckley to her boss, Times Washington Editor Andrew Rosenthal. That letter, which has fallen into the hands of Slate, protests Seelye's coverage of a speech the previous day. Dole, in New Jersey, had talked about Clinton being AWOL in the drug war. Buckley complains that the story "could lead the reader to believe that Dole was talking about a very different kind of 'playing around'--something he did not say, and something he would not say." No Dole staff would be quoted by name for this story, but speaking on background, a senior campaign official elaborated upon the complaint. "The coverage of Dole has been excessively bitchy from day one, in addition to having a number of extraordinary factual problems."
 The Times, because Dole was blowing their treatment of him out of proportion
 Dole, because the Times was publishing many unflattering things about him  Dole, because he deserved to be treated better on his way out of politics  The Times, because Dole was blowing their treatment of him out of proportion  The Times, because it is their job to show both sides of all politicians