The New York Times reports this morning on a new New York Times/CBS News poll. The poll found that 67% of registered voters say George W. Bush "has strong qualities of leadership," while 61% think Al Gore does. The same poll found that 53% said Mr. Bush "would make U.S. defenses stronger," while only 18% said Mr. Gore would. The same poll found that 43% said Mr. Bush "is likely to reduce taxes," while 27% said Mr. Gore would.
So what headline do you think the New York Times runs over this story on an inside news page? Here it is: "Voters Rate Gore as the Candidate Best Prepared to Lead."
The only data in the study that could possibly justify that inside headline are highlighted on page one of the Times, while the numbers about leadership qualities, taxes, and defense are buried inside the paper. A front-page subheadline crows "Gore Seen as More Ready." As the news story itself notes, "The lingering questions about Mr. Bush's preparedness do not seem to have affected his overall standing as reflected in the poll." So why make a big deal of it in the headlines?
Pax Christi: A dispatch in the national section of the Times today from St. Cloud, Minnesota, reports on the efforts of a variety of religious leaders to get the federal government to spend less money on weapons and more on welfare and schools. The story takes the "venerable peace organization" entirely at face value, and quotes one religious nuclear-freeze activist as saying that his group is "not coming from a romantic or naive view of the dangers in this world." Not much it isn't. Would it be too much to ask in a story like this for at least a note of skepticism, or the inclusion of a comment from someone -- even a Democrat like President Clinton -- who thinks that abolishing the death penalty, lifting sanctions on Iraq, and immediately banning all nuclear weapons would be a bad idea?
Energy Rule: Also in the national section of today's New York Times, a story about new federal energy efficiency standards for appliances offers a window into the arcane world of federal government regulations. The story recounts this drama in all apparent seriousness: "The energy-saving strategy also includes a proposal to make clothes washers 35 percent more efficient in the use of water and power, which will be announced this week; a new standard making water heaters 5 percent to 9 percent more efficient, proposed in April; and a new rule on fluorescent lamps, published in final form on Sept. 19. Coincidentally, a new rule requiring that room air-conditioners be 10 percent more efficient took effect on Sunday. A rule that will make refrigerators 30 percent more efficient takes effect on July 1." The article includes quotes from an air-conditioning trade-group spokesman and from a conservation advocate. But what the story could have really used was a quote from some regulatory reform advocate saying something to the effect of, "Think of all the energy being wasted by bureaucrats trying to order Americans what kind of light bulbs and clothes-washers to buy, and all the energy being wasted by corporations hiring lawyers and lobbyists to track these rules, shape them, and eventually comply with them. Wouldn't it make more sense to just let corporations manufacture appliances with a wide range of prices and energy efficiencies, and to allow consumers to decide for themselves whether they want to spend more at the outset for appliances that will save them energy costs over the long run?"