The Metro Matters column on the front of the metro section of today's New York editions of the Times reports that "The State legislature goes into its session closer today, a day-plus of frenzied deal-making." The column goes on to say that the lawmakers will try to reach agreement on a hate crimes law and other criminal justice measures, and predicts that "the hate crimes bill will finally become law (unless the two chambers fail to resolve a technical squabble over authorship)." In case we don't get the point, there's a news story on page B8 reporting from Albany that "state lawmakers will convene here Thursday" and that "much of the important business does not get done until the last frenzied days." This news article reports that the lawmakers will discuss hate crimes and, yep, the same criminal justice matters that the column on the metro front tells us about. Why two similar stories on the same frenzy? This way the Times can hedge slightly on the likelihood that that hate crimes bill will pass: The story from Albany reports that "The issue of hate crimes, where there is no real disagreement, has become mired in ego-driven squabbling, and while a deal still seems likely, it is far from certain."
No Credit: One of the ways the Times creates its aura of impressiveness is by failing to credit other newspapers that break stories before it does. It was The Wall Street Journal, for instance, that brought to front-page prominence the issue of insurance companies overcharging blacks. The Times fronts a story about the issue today above the fold, with no mention of the Journal's groundbreaking coverage. A mention of the Journal in an earlier small Times story on the topic was relegated to the inside of the Times' business section. The Times plays the same game on another story today with a brief on page B4 of its metro section about Rep. Rick Lazio's tax returns. It writes "The New York Times reported on Friday that Mr. Lazio has made a 600 percent profit on stock he bought in 1997 in Quick & Reilly, a brokerage controlled by some of his campaign contributors." Well, the Times story on Friday actually credited Newsday, a Long Island tabloid, for breaking the story. But now that it's next week and a brief, the Times gives itself credit.
Divine Divinity: A story on page A3 about Syria's minority Alawite sect reports that its members "hold that Ali, the son in law of the Prophet Muhammad, is a divine." I think the word is "divinity"; my Webster's New World dictionary says that the word divine, used as a noun, means a clergyman or theologian.
Abridging Free Speech: In its lead editorial, the Times seems to throw its weight behind a measure in the House of Representatives that would impose disclosure requirements "on groups that spend $10,000 or more per year on ads that mention a candidate 90 days before a general election or 60 days before a primary." It cautions the lawmakers against changing the bill to do anything "destructive of the constitutional rights of organizations involved in political activities." But the law the Times apparently backs is destructive of exactly that. The Times itself spends more than $10,000 in the days leading up to elections on printing and distributing editorials endorsing candidates. It is protected by the same First Amendment language: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." If Congress -- as the Times wants it to -- passes a law subjecting political speech to stricter controls than other kinds of speech, it's the beginning of an erosion of the First Amendment protections that the Times and other newspapers would eventually come to regret. Of course, there's nothing in the Times editorial about the freedom of speech or of the press. The only Constitutional right the Times editorial mentions explicitly is "the constitutional right to privacy of advocacy organizations." Oh yeah, the right to privacy -- that's the one that's not actually in the Constitution, but that the Times likes because it can be interpreted to allow an absolute constitutional right to all abortions.