A Times article headlined "De Blasio and Dolan Announce a Push for More Pre-K Classes" waits until the tenth paragraph to deliver the news that in the fight between Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio over whether to raise taxes on the "rich" to pay for the pre-K classes, Cardinal Dolan is neutral. (Governor Cuomo opposes an additional tax increase, while Mayor de Blasio is insisting on it.)
The Times article concludes: "Later on Thursday, an advocacy group leading the mayor's prekindergarten campaign released a letter of support for his plan signed by 250 religious leaders. Cardinal Dolan's name was not on the list."
A Times news article about the clash between New York Mayor de Blasio and charter school operator Eva Moskowitz includes this paragraph:
The front of the Times arts section features a positive review of a book by sportswriter Dan Jenkins:
Lower down, the Times review reports:
A Times news article about rich people includes the sentence, "In Britain, which, unlike the United States, does not tax individuals on their reported global wealth, the number of investor visas rose by a quarter in the first three-quarters of 2013."
That's a strange formulation — the U.S. in fact doesn't tax individuals on their "reported global wealth," but on their global income. The difference between income and wealth is something that reporters and public policy makers often get confused about.
The Times has never seen a problem that can't be solved by a tax increase, and, to hear columnist Thomas Friedman tell it, the crisis in Ukraine is no different. Mr. Friedman's column today recommends responding to Vladimir Putin's Russia by raising the gas tax on American drivers. It's actually comical, so long as it doesn't happen.
At Commentary, Martin Kramer has a characteristically excellent post faulting the Times formulation, in respect of Columbia professor Rashid Khalidi, that "critics have accused the professor of having had ties to the Palestine Liberation Organization, which he has denied." As Professor Kramer points out, numerous reporters — not "critics" — including those of the Times itself have described Khalidi as working for the PLO.
A Times editorial makes the case for increasing the federal minimum wage because it would be good for business. The Times writes:
"To Pay For Infrastructure Repairs, Obama Seeks Tax Changes" is the headline over a Times news article. The euphemistic language of the headline echoes that of the article itself, which reports:
The online New York Times opinion has a "room for debate" feature that might more accurately be labeled "no room for debate." The latest example asks "How can the West help bring about democracy in Ukraine without antagonizing Russia?" Leave aside the questionable Times idea that antagonizing Russia ought to be, or can be, avoided. The Times provides responses from four authors. Three more or less call on the U.S. to work with Russia. The one dissident, Richard Grenell, gets hammered by the Times hard-left commenters.
"Perhaps" is one of the words that as an editor or as an alert reader always makes me pay close attention to what comes next. A dispatch from San Francisco in today's Times reports, "Perhaps nowhere in America is the debate over income inequality being carried out as fiercely as in San Francisco, where the technology industry's success has led to a roaring economy, social disruption and widespread protests."
Perhaps. Or perhaps it's being carried out just as fiercely (if one-sidedly), in the newsroom of the New York Times, which is crusading on the topic; in New York City, where a mayor was recently elected on the issue, or in Washington, D.C., where President Obama has called it the defining issue of our time. Why reach for the superlative, which the "perhaps" concedes is just hype? The article could have just said, "The debate over income inequality is raging in San Francisco, where the technology industry's success has led to a roaring economy, social disruption and widespread protests."
A Times news article begins: "Gary Melius, a well-known Long Island developer and prominent political patron, was shot in the head by a masked gunman on Monday afternoon in the parking lot of his opulent Gold Coast estate in Suffolk County, the police said."
If the guy is so well-known and prominent, why does the Times need to remind us of that? By saying so, the paper is signaling that he wasn't. They don't say, "Barack Obama, a well-known and prominent Washington politician" or "Jill Abramson, a well-known and prominent editor." It's just hype.
Also, isn't "opulent Gold Coast estate" redundant? Are there non-opulent Gold Coast estates?
The New York Times waddled in recently on two stories that were already extensively reported in other publications. It more or less replicated the reporting and then re-issued the articles to Times readers, without letting Times readers in on the fact that they were consuming five-month-old news.
Our first example is today's front-page New York Times article by Jennifer Steinhauer and Jonathan Weisman about the Heritage Foundation's supposed turn away from rigorous scholarship and toward political activism (funny how the Times wasn't exactly celebrating Heritage's rigorous scholarship during the decades before it was supposedly destroyed).
The Times reports that "In recent months, some of the group's most prominent scholars have left."
The Times quotes Mickey Edwards, a founding trustee of the Heritage Foundation and a Republican former congressman: "DeMint has not only politicized Heritage, he's also trivialized it."
A "Metropolitan Diary" item in today's paper sets off the B.S. detector of a number of readers. At least 12 Times commenters have upvoted a comment that says, "Often I feel that a Metropolitan Diary entry is more a short piece of 'Only in New York' fiction than it is truth. I think this is one of those exercises in creative writing, especially after noting the last name of the writer."
An article/interview in the Times home section today includes the following passage:
"Nobel Leader's Frank Advice to China's Leadership," is the headline over a Times news article about work that the Nobel laureate economist A. Michael Spence is doing on China. The article says:
How does the Times know that Professor Spence's advice is "frank"? I read the Times article and couldn't find any reference at all to Mr. Spence advising the Chinese government about political or religious freedom and democracy, or about allowing free labor unions the right to organize or strike.
Subscribe to the Mailing List
© 2014 FutureOfCapitalism LLC