If you took it from the editors of the New York Times you might think that the publication is well and truly opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline. In October 2011 it published an editorial urging President Barack Obama to say "no" to the pipeline. They did it again last week.
"Supporters of the pipeline have argued that this is oil from a friendly country and that Canada will sell it anyway. We hope Mr Obama will see the flaw in this argument. Saying no to the pipeline will not stop Canada from developing the tar sands, but it will force the construction of new pipelines through Canada itself," they wrote. "And that will require Canadians to play a larger role in deciding whether a massive expansion of tar sands development is prudent. At the very least, saying no to the Keystone XL will slow down plans to triple tar sands production from just under two million barrels a day now to six million barrels a day by 2030."
That's the issue as the editorial department has it. Apparently, they're advertising department has it very differently. They just took $30,000 from the government of Alberta to run an ad promoting the pipeline.
To this end, in their own little way, the New York Times is an awful lot like the government of Quebec: they say they'll fight our oil exports tooth and nail, but they sure don't mind accepting our money.