OK. From now on I'm linking to USA Today

It's obvious that this newspaper has been neglected by bloggers in favor of the mystique of the NYTimes and WaPo. If the Times is so outrageous, and it is, why continue to cite it for news? The whole American news media has sunk into a big rut of letting one or two newspapers define what's fit to print. Criticizing bias is fine, but what difference does it make as long as there's no competition? And how bad can other papers be compared to the L. A. Times and lately the Times of New York? The NYTimes is an icon among liberals and people who were educated in eastern universities. It has vast resources, but one has to wonder why readers should have to dig for significant facts that are constantly buried in stories or stories relegated to inside sections. Maybe I'm being unfair, since my access to the print editions of these papers is very limited and their web versions aren't arranged the same, but the last time I looked at the NYTimes website, it looked like the stories were being chosen by the Kerry campaign.

Update: At least one sees the point, if not exactly going as far as to tout replacement. Unfortunately, however, he brings up Jack Kelley from USA Today.