"Though Enrolling More Poor Students, 2-Year Colleges Get Less of Federal Pie," is the headline over a news article by Times Washington Bureau Chief David Leonhardt about "a report to be released Thursday."
True to form, the Times includes no hyperlink to the report and no quotes from anyone critical or even skeptical of its findings. The notion that federal funding might be allocated to support scientific, academic, or medical research, and that such research dollars might go disproportionately to professors at major research universities rather than community colleges, goes unexplored in the article. In other words, the point of federal funding to higher education isn't solely to subsidize poor students, but to fund research.
The article is also flawed by the unquestioned assumption that government money spent on colleges somehow goes to the students rather than to professors or administrators. The Times article says:
Today's example comes in the latest installment of the Times' coverage of gay Boy Scouts and leaders. (This is the main issue for the Times when it comes to the Boy Scouts, an organization that saves lives, teaches skills, and performs community service while attracting little attention from the Times for anything other than its policies on gays.)
Today's Times article reports "Glaad and other rights groups took up the cause, enlisting celebrities like Madonna, who wore a Boy Scout uniform to an awards ceremony."
A truly nasty column by Michael Powell in today's Times relies on an anonymous source to smear the insurance executive Maurice Greenberg.
The column says that Mr. Greenberg "has fought a lengthy battle from his Fifth Avenue aerie to avoid acknowledging anything sounding like personal responsibility for the disaster that befell A.I.G. and its shareholders."
This is an odd formulation. First of all, Mr. Greenberg's office is on Park Avenue. Second of all, the "disaster that befell A.I.G. and its shareholders" was really what happened after Mr. Greenberg had been forced out as CEO.
The anonymous smear comes here:
This is a clear violation of the Times policy on anonymous sources, which states:
A news article from Tel Aviv about the Israeli politician Yair Lapid includes a reference to "the revelation that he met in April with Sheldon Adelson, the ultraconservative financier who backs Mr. Netanyahu and owns the Israel Hayom newspaper that loyally supports him."
"Urging Government Action on Water, Roads and Power in Texas" is the headline on a New York Times article supplied by the Times' non-profit partner, The Texas Tribune.
Like other Texas Tribune articles highlighted here earlier, this one has a left-wing slant. It's not government action that's being urged, it's government spending. And a reader could easily think that the one doing the urging is the Times (or the Tribune) rather than the subjects of the story.
The article quotes four sources supporting more spending — Governor Perry, Bill Hammond, Ed Emmett, and Robert Nichols. Three other sources quoted in the article — Linda Watson, Michael Cline and Stephen Klineberg — don't explicitly call for more spending but talk about the state's growing needs, which the others argue can be addressed by more spending.
The opposition is relegated to a single paragraph in the 23-paragraph-long news article. That paragraph reads:
A dispatch from Jerusalem in today's New York Times reports: "Although Israel's economy is regarded as relatively strong and stable, having weathered the global economic downturn, the growth of recent years has directly benefited a small percentage of the population, living costs are high — perhaps because of a lack of competition, experts say — and the gap between the rich and the poor has been increasing."
The Times op-ed page is pushing pretty hard for this idea of a tax on processed food. First was Mark Bittman's op-ed calling for "a tax on prepared food, but not on raw ingredients." Then over the weekend, less than a month after Mr. Bittman's article, came another op-ed piece, this one by Kristin Wartman, suggesting:
In the middle of an article about the supposed disappearance of the New York accent, the left-leaning columnist in the Times Sunday Metropolitan section (in which there is no right-leaning columnist) hits us with this:
A front-page New York Times headline declares, "After Plant Explosion, Texas Remains Wary of Regulation."
Less wary of regulation, apparently, are the New York Times reporters and editors, who engage in a misleading use of statistics to try to advance their case for additional regulations (though the Times acknowledges somewhere in the middle of the article that "it is impossible to know whether tougher regulations would have prevented the disaster," and toward the end that the fertilizer plant that exploded "fell under the purview of at least seven state or federal regulatory agencies.")
The misleading statistic comes earlier on in the article, right at the jump from page one to an inside page, where the Times tells readers, "Texas has also had the nation's highest number of workplace fatalities — more than 400 annually — for much of the past decade."
A Times article about the Sierra Club ceasing its ad spending on Facebook because of the involvement of a Facebook founder in a pro-immigration-reform group that aired a commercial about the Keystone XL pipeline includes the following passage:
Talk about brass knuckles — this from a group that just pulled its advertising from a company because of a complaint about the CEO's politics?
A Times article under the headline "Israel Moves to End Gender Segregation in Public Spaces" reports on a move by the Israeli government to, among other things, force fervently Orthodox Jewish Israelis to take down street signs urging women to dress modestly and to force radio shows catering to that community to include female broadcasters. The Times article includes two reactions to the decision, none of which comes from the fervently Orthodox community itself. One person quoted by the Times says, "From their point of view, this is a huge attack against their style of life...That's how they will see it."
It's nice to see that point of view represented, but it's a bit of a shame that it has to come second-hand. Instead of interviewing someone to speculate on how fervently Orthodox Jews will react, why not call up an actual fervently Orthodox Jew and ask directly?
A Times news article headlined "An Effort To Thwart Sale of Papers To the Kochs" reports that "the two Democratic leaders of the [California] state legislature — Darrell Steinberg, the president pro tem of the Senate, and John A. Perez, the speaker of the Assembly" announced on Wednesday that they would oppose a sale of the Los Angeles Times to the libertarian businessmen Charles and David Koch.
A Times news article headlined "emphasis on Deficit Reduction Is Seen By Economists as Impeding Recovery" begins:
This is absurd. These economists have no way of knowing what would happen. The last time around, they famously predicted a lower unemployment rate than what actually happened after the stimulus. And the Times lumps together the spending cuts and the tax increases as if they have the same effect.
A full-page advertisement from Coca-Cola on page A13 of today's New York Times declares "Coca-Cola commits to: ... Market responsibly, including no advertising to children under 12 anywhere in the world."
On the face of it, this seems ridiculous. How is Coca-Cola going to prevent some child from seeing a Coca-Cola sign, or billboard, or vending machine, television commercial, or print newspaper ad?
If you go to the Coke web site there's a little more information. But this is the sort of claim that if it were being made by a politician or a mortgage lender would be the subject of a Times investigative reporting onslaught. When it's made in an advertisement in the Times' own pages by Coca-Cola, it gets a pass.
From a New York Times news article about teacher pay: "average teacher pay — $56,643, according to the Department of Education — is lower than the average pay in many other professions that require college and graduate degrees."
The Times does not point out that those "many other professions" don't also offer summers and school vacation weeks off, defined-benefit pensions, lifetime job security, and generous health insurance benefits. Not to take anything away from teachers — I love teachers. Just to make sure that the compensation comparison is an accurate one.
Subscribe to the Mailing List
© 2013 FutureOfCapitalism LLC