As Smartertimes.com has noted before, when the New York Times starts throwing around the phrase "most economists," it is time to watch your wallet. A story in the Times national section today pulls a slight variation on the "most economists" stunt. The article runs under the headline "Lieberman Declares His Party Built the Boom," and the paragraph at issue discusses which presidential candidate's plan is most likely to lead to deficit spending by the federal government. Here's how the Times handles it: "Most independent analysts agree that Mr. Gore's plans are more likely to keep the government within its means, but many believe that both candidates' proposals run the risk of overspending the surpluses."
This should set off alarm bells for any skeptical reader. What is the Times' definition of an "independent analyst"? The article doesn't say. Did the Times actually conduct a survey of "independent analysts" to ascertain that "most" think that Mr. Gore's plan is less likely to produce a deficit? If so, how many "independent analysts" were included in the survey? How were they selected? How many more of the "independent analysts" surveyed thought Mr. Gore's plan is less likely to produce a deficit? This Times news story doesn't quote a single one of these purportedly independent analysts. It doesn't name a single one. It does not give the readers any indication of what expertise the "independent analysts" have that would lend any credibility to their forecasts about the federal budget. It's all enough to make a reader suspect that the Times is taking its own opinion about the economic plans of the candidates and fobbing it off on the readers in its news columns under the guise of "most independent analysts."
News Blackout: The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and Inside.com all reported yesterday on the Tribune Company's sale of its magazine group to Time Inc. The Post reported that the New York Times Company was a losing bidder for the magazines. The Journal and Inside.com reported that the Times Company's losing bid had been made in conjunction with American Media, which publishes supermarket tabloids including the National Enquirer. The Times handles this news today by publishing a wire-service brief inside its business section. The brief omits any mention of the Times Company's bid for the magazines, and the brief also omits any mention of the Times Company's apparent cooperation with American Media.
Barak's Platform: A front-page news story in today's New York Times about political developments in Israel begins with the sentence, "Prime Minister Barak, elected on a platform of peacemaking, announced tonight that he was prepared to take an indefinite 'timeout' from the Israeli-Palestinian peace effort." It's a gross oversimplification to say that Mr. Barak was elected "on a platform of peacemaking." Mr. Barak was elected also on a platform of "red lines" on which he would not compromise. Among the red lines was a united Jerusalem as Israel's capital; also among them was the preservation of Israeli settlements on the West Bank in concentrated blocks.
Faster Than A Speeding Bullet: An article by Jerry Seinfeld in today's New York Times compares the Subway Series in baseball to the American Civil War. "I bet major league pitchers today probably throw about as hard as the little balls that came out of those muskets," Mr. Seinfeld writes. Well, not exactly. As a standard high-school history textbook puts it in its chapter on the Civil War, "The improved range of modern rifles multiplied casualties."