In what some are praising as perhaps the best presidential debate ever, Fox News accomplished a rare feat: It earned genuine praise from The New York Times.

"It was riveting. It was admirable. It compels me to write a cluster of words I never imagined writing: hooray for Fox News," wrote NY Times op-ed writer Frank Bruni.

Like many applauding Fox's approach, Bruni pointed to the aggressive, on-point questions from the moderators that went right to the heart of "the most profound apprehensions" voters feel about each candidate:

This wasn’t a debate, at least not like most of those I’ve seen.

This was an inquisition.

On Thursday night in Cleveland, the Fox News moderators did what only Fox News moderators could have done, because the representatives of any other network would have been accused of pro-Democratic partisanship.

They took each of the 10 Republicans onstage to task. They held each of them to account. They made each address the most prominent blemishes on his record, the most profound apprehensions that voters feel about him, the greatest vulnerability that he has.

Noting that "of course" Fox took its "combative" approach in part to promote theatricality and avoid a "snooze-fest," Bruni ultimately dismissed the idea that theatrics alone were motivating the questions. Fox "accomplished something important," he said, by forcing the candidates out of the comfort zone of pre-scripted talking points—and doing so by asking the "right" questions.

"And the questions that the moderators asked weren’t just discomfiting, humiliating ones," wrote Bruni. "They were the right ones..."

"It was great television, and even better politics," concluded Bruni.