Mr. Haberman: I was intrigued by your column today, and by Thomas L. Friedman's. I don't blame you for eulogizing A.M. Rosenthal, though most of what I've read about him over the years reveals him as a humorless bully who nonetheless earned respect for having fought for the paper's right to publish the Pentagon Papers. But maybe you can devote a second column to an (apparent) contradiction here.

The New York Times has steadfastly refused to even address the issue of fraud in the 2004 election. Since its article on Nov. 20, 2004, in which Tom Zeller, Jr. blithely dismissed claims of fraud as the brainchild of bloggers and conspiracy theorists, it has become painfully clear that you were wrong and we were right. Diebold and other voting machine manufacturers are now being brought into court on numerous charges, Diebold is the subject of an S.E.C. investigation, and its C.E.O., Wally O'Dell (who famously promised to deliver Ohio to the Republicans in 2004) has resigned in disgrace.

What would A.M. Rosenthal, whom you lauded for journalistic integrity, have said about all this? Would he defend The Times avoidance of this issue? If so, the man who fought for truth in the Pentagon Papers case would have contradicted his own principles, it seems to me.

When a newspaper is owned by a N.Y.S.E. conglomerate, I notice journalistic integrity carries a high price tag at times.

Yours truly, Bob Mills (a proud blogger)
Robert Lockwood Mills, author/historian, Monroe, CT 06468
robertlockwoodmills.tripod.com rmills6126@earthlink.net