A bit late, but a good one (via Yglesias): Andrew Sabl notes that Weekly Standard coverage of Harvard and ROTC (in two posts, here and here) omits the pertinent fact that the entire context for the Harvard decision was the recent repeal of DADT (and, before that, the military's ban on gays and lesbians). Sabl: "someone who read only the Standard’s version would get the idea that an effete Ivy League university, having dissed the military for no particular reason, has now climbed down."
This is what Conor Friedersdorf is always, and for good reason, railing against. I think what's necessary in this case is to imagine the "someone" Sabl suggests. Think of a smart, conservative college student, maybe even a high school student, who is just starting to learn about politics and government. And -- good for him! -- he wants to read more, and he's turning, sensibly, to places like the Weekly Standard and the National Review. Well, it would also be sensible to start by reading a major newspaper...but of course he's been told ever since he started paying attention that The New York Times is hopelessly biased and, essentially, full of lies.
Of course, the problem is that our smart young student really won't know that the elite college fight with ROTC really was based on specific issues (in recent decades, discrimination based on sexual orientation) and not on general hatred of the military or lack of patriotism. He really won't know.
In my view, the harm being done here is almost completely to conservatives, not liberals.