The lengthy obituary of literary titan Gore Vidal that ran in Wednesday's New York Times was updated yesterday to correct three hilarious mistakes.

The Bill Keller who wrote the op-ed "WikiLeaks, a Post Postscript" makes his position clear: regardless of your feelings about Julian Assange, WikiLeaks must be protected under the First Amendment — so, too, the New York Times reporters who published stories based on WikiLeaks information.

Glasses-adjusting New York Times-version-of-a-Republican David Brooks is a highly talented political columnist-craftsman, in the sense that he is able to lay a thin veneer of pop psychology-varnish over even the most cracked glass coffee table of intellectualism* (*David Brooks-style mishmash alert). Today, Brooks puts forth his most breathtaking ideological prescription yet: our leaders should always be doing opposite things at all times.

Did you catch the BIG SPLASH on the front page of NYT Travel section this past weekend? "Single in Chicago." Summary: Single woman goes to Chicago. Opening sentence: "IT'S hard to decide, while sipping a citrine cocktail called Sex on the Roof, what to gawk at first..." And?

Generally speaking, no mischief perpetrated by teenagers is "news." Teenagers not perpetrating mischief is news. This is because—no matter what race, creed, nationality, or socioeconomic stratum they come from—teenagers are punks. Do not, however, tell this to the New York Times. They have a very incisive sociological story to write.

New York Times television critic Alessandra Stanley, whose prodigious error rate has earned her such praise from her own colleagues as "a television critic with a history of errors"—not to mention the assignment of her very own personal copy editor whose sole duty was to try to face down her steady stream of mistakes—has offered up another doozy.

The always-infuriating New York Times Style section featured a story Thursday about insanely expensive dog houses. It was an article tailor-made made to generate the piquant brand of blind rage specific to every story featured by the always-infuriating New York Times Style section.

This week has been tough on obviousness. There are the subtle implications of the Supreme Court's Arizona rulings and the murmurs of its coming Affordable Care Act rulings. Both make Mitt Romney and the Romney campaign mention words until reporters disperse in frustration. "WE SAID WORDS THAT ARE SYNONYMS WITH POLITICS. PLEASE GO AWAY."

Ed Shadid, the cousin of dead New York Times foreign correspondent Anthony Shadid, caused a stir over the weekend when he claimed in a speech that Anthony pre-emptively blamed the Times for his death in Syria, telling his wife: "If anything happens to me, I want the world to know that the New York Times killed me." In an interview with Gawker, the surviving Shadid confirms the account and says the Times knew a trip to Syria was too dangerous, but sent him anyway.

Fabulously wealthy CEO whisperer and newspaper columnist Thomas Friedman is little more than a human-shaped random word generator programmed with the "Computers and Internet" section of a fourth-grade vocabulary textbook and fitted with a mustache. He writes one single column, sometimes using different proper nouns or cycling through slightly new platitudes, in order to allow a new headline to be written. The Only Thomas Friedman Column That Exists—which ran right on schedule yesterday—opens like this:

We at Gawker have warned you previously that the New York Times Style section exists solely to introduce you to society's biggest shitheads, and yesterday's profile of the Brant Brothers is no exception. At this point, it feels as if the Times is going out of its way to troll us all. No one at that paper could possibly think these two teenagers—who have yet to contribute anything meaningful to society—are inherently interesting. A much more reasonable explanation is that someone at the Times Style section sits down every week and is like, "Oh hey, how can we piss off everyone this week? I KNOW! Let's profile a pair of privileged dipshits!" Look at this fucking article:

Stephen Colbert doesn't trust the New York Times, and hasn't for a while. On tonight's Colbert Report, Stephen explained their latest offense: attacking Mitt Romney for nothing more than the size of one of his homes and the massive renovation that he has undertaken there.

Some melodrama went down at New York hip-hop radio station Hot 97's annual Summer Jam this weekend. Before the show, morning-show host Peter Rosenberg publicly dissed headliner Nicki Minaj for her increasing pop appeal: "I see the real hip-hop heads sprinkled in here. I see them. I know there are some chicks here waiting to sing ‘Starships' later - I'm not talking to y'all right now." "Starships" refers to Nicki's current screaming pop-house hit.

When the New York Times published a detailed story by chief Washington correspondent David Sanger today confirming the U.S. as the co-author of the Stuxnet virus and outlining Barack Obama's role in directing a highly classified digital monkeywrenching program against Iranian nuclear facilities, many observers noted that the story couldn't have been written without White House support. Which is odd, considering how much energy the White House has been putting into prosecuting leaks it doesn't like.

Mustachioed aspic Tom Friedman has written a thousand words in today's New York Times about Paul Simon. The point of the column seems to be, basically, that there's a new documentary about Simon's album Graceland, and also Paul Simon is Tom Friedman's friend.

Fat dick Roger Ailes, who runs Fox News channel when he's not busy spying on his employees, threatening old men, or trying to destroy people who take photographs of his bathrooms, made some waves last week when he called the New York Times "lying scum" for writing about him. What made fewer waves was the fact that the thing that had him so exercised about the Times never happened, and his accusation was itself a lie.

Oh tra la, fiddle dee dee, dance 'round all of the Maypoles, for Verlyn Klinkenborg hath taken pen in hand to scratch out yet another dispatch from the mild climes of rural America, which is mightily preferable to the indignities of the city, where all of Verlyn Klinkenborg's readers live. This week's fascinating topic: lawns. We got our hands on the rough draft, before the cityfied editors ruined Verlyn's vision.

A Chinese writer is claiming that Rupert Murdoch was behind one of the Wall Street Journal's more embarrassing recent corrections—the paper wrongly claimed that the son of disgraced Chinese politician Bo Xilai, who preached Maoist austerity, once showed up for a date at former Amb. Jon Huntsman's residence in a cherry-red Ferrari—and that the Journal "badgered" and "threatened" a source that refused to back it up on the story. The Journal's China editor tells Gawker that the claims are "utter nonsense."

The New York Times ran a story today on how to talk to your children about the pornography they are actively seeking out, like a bunch of Juicy Juice-chugging, sticky-fingered little perverts.

Despite very specific instructions by us to cease and desist with his nature-based musings, designated New York Times leaf-and-cow columnist Verlyn Klinkenborg continues to invade the Sunday op-ed section with some of the world's most artisanal writing. None of which has anything to do with anything.