This morning's New York Times indicates that the newspaper has come up with a solution to its problem of not being able to spell last names correctly: it has started either leaving out the last names entirely or using only the first initials of the last names. So, the newspaper's "City" section, distributed to readers in New York City, features a lengthy profile of a recovering crack addict who is identified only as "Maria." And the New York Times magazine includes articles about an actress and comedian identified only as "Angela M.," about a currency counterfeiter identified only as "Fabio," about a man named "Eddie B." who is being released from the Suffolk County Jail, about a compulsive shopper identified only as "Barbara G.," about a Honduran man living in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, who is identified only as "Jose" and about a graphic designer with family money who is identified only as "Paul." Well, this does make spelling the names easier, but it comes with the cost of a reduction in the credibility of the articles. Sure, there are some cases, like that of the Colombian currency counterfeiter, in which it would be extremely difficult to find someone willing to use his or her real full name, and in which the tradeoff between the information gained by granting a source anonymity and the credibility that is lost for the article is an exchange worth making on behalf of readers. On the other hand, agreeing not to print a full name is often simply an excuse for laziness. Do the editors really expect us to believe that the New York Times, with its vast reportorial resources, would be unable, if it mounted a serious effort, to find a single compulsive shopper or child of rich parents who would be willing to be quoted by name? Without the full names, the characters seem less genuine and the entire report takes on the cornball feel of a high-school newspaper or a glossy magazine aimed at teenage girls.
Name That Think Tank: While it may have come up with a solution to the problem of spelling the names of persons, the New York Times can't seem to manage this morning to get the right name for a think tank in Washington. A dispatch from Jordan that runs in the international section of this morning's Times refers to "Robert Satloff, director of the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Affairs, a pro-Israeli policy group." The name of Mr. Satloff's operation is in fact the Washington Institute for Near East Policy; the think tank is also mentioned, with its name rendered correctly, in a front-page news analysis from Washington about the recent developments in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Provocation: That same front-page news analysis contains the following gem: "Mr. Sharon's provocative visit to Muslim holy sites atop Jerusalem's Old City, the destruction of the Jewish shrine known as Joseph's Tomb in Nablus by Palestinian demonstrators last week and the burning of an ancient synagogue in Jericho on Thursday night have challenged the very notion of respect for and sovereignty over religious sites." This is wrongheaded for several reasons. First, it equates Ariel Sharon's walking around with a tour guide on the Temple Mount plaza to the destruction of the two Jewish shrines. Mr. Sharon didn't destroy or burn anything; he didn't even go into the Al Aksa Mosque or the Dome of the Rock. He just walked around outside them. The Times "news analysis" defines Mr. Sharon's visit, as the PLO did, as a "provocative visit to Muslim holy sites," but it could just as easily have been described as a visit to a Jewish holy site. And as to whether it was provocative, remember that even Mr. Sharon's political adversary, the prime minister of Israel, Ehud Barak, when asked if Mr. Sharon's visit had provoked the Arab riots, said, "No, it had nothing to do with it." Uri Dan of the New York Post has reported on Israeli intelligence assessments that the Arabs were planning riots weeks before Mr. Sharon went to the Temple Mount.
Equal Time: The Times magazine lets one half of a broken-up marriage tell his side of "Why We Split" in an article that puts all sorts of words in the mouth of the writer's ex-wife. The ex-wife isn't named, but she's easily identifiable from the details in the article, not least of which is the name of her ex-husband, who wrote the piece. (Disclosure: The ex-wife is an acquaintance of the editor of Smartertimes.com.) This is surely a delicate situation, but it seems to us that in fairness to the ex-wife, the Times shouldn't have given this man a forum to vent unchallenged about her. She doesn't get any chance in the article, or elsewhere in the magazine, to give her side of the story. It's bad enough that this guy spent down their joint savings account, as he himself recounts in the article; now he has to bare the details of their break-up for a national audience?
Sowing Seeds: A front-page news article about the close presidential race in America quotes the governor of Michigan as saying, "If something goes completely haywire, it may be that the seeds were sewn long ago." Seams are sewn, but seeds, in the English language, are "sown."
Note: Smartertimes.com is operating off the bulldog edition of the Times, which is the version of the Sunday paper that hits the streets on Saturday evening.