This article addresses bias in the American press and shows how the inevitability of reporting from a point of view challenges the possibility of a newspaper of record on the Middle East. Examining 30 days of coverage of the Intifada, it both shows that coverage of events varied across three mainstream US newspapers - The New York Times, The Washington Post and Chicago Tribune - and demonstrates that in the case of the newspaper most often called a newspaper of record - The New York Times -coverage varied in distinct ways from other mainstream newspapers. The article thus considers how the Times reputation and influence converge with its record in creating a broader impression about the perspective of the US press on the Middle East.