Here's the lead paragraph of today's front-page New York Times story on the presidential campaign: "At a time when Vice President Al Gore should be scrapping for votes in large swing states like Ohio and Michigan, he is devoting virtually his entire week to campaigning in smaller states that he should be able to ignore -- even his home state, Tennessee." This use of the word "should" in this sentence should set off alarm bells among those who wish that the Times would adhere more closely to the journalistic convention of not openly rooting for one candidate or another in its news coverage. The word "should," according to Webster's Second, is used to express "propriety, necessity," for example, "children should get hot lunches." In the view of Mr. Gore's backers, perhaps, the candidate should be scrapping for votes in large swing states at this point in the campaign season. But the Times doesn't attribute this sentiment, leaving readers to assume that it is the newspaper's own view. Imagine a newspaper story that began, "At a time when Vice President Gore should be seeking gainful employment in the private sector for the period following his impending loss in a landslide, he is devoting his entire week to scrapping for votes in an election that he should have realized long ago that he was going to lose." That sentence, written from the point of view of a Gore opponent, is about as biased as the lead paragraph in today's Times story, which is written from the point of view of a Gore backer.
And if the first paragraph of this news story weren't enough, consider all the reasons the article trots out to explain Mr. Gore's precarious position in the polls: "The vice president's struggle to solidify his geographic base stems from several factors, political analysts said. Some are national, like his inability to reassure voters about his credibility and amiability, and the lingering tendency of some voters to associate Mr. Gore with a scandal-ridden White House. Others are more localized, including demographic changes in some states and the strength of Mr. Nader, the Green Party candidate, in places like the Pacific Northwest and Wisconsin." Not once does the article contemplate the possibility that the reason Mr. Gore is in trouble is that more voters agree with George W. Bush on the issues. For instance, there is a possibility that more voters think that more of the budget surplus should be returned in a tax cut than want it spent in Washington. There is a possibility that more voters don't want to abolish the internal combustion engine. There is a possibility that more voters believe in small government and individual responsibility. But rather than viewing a potential Bush victory as an endorsement of his conservative agenda or as a mandate to govern based on it, the Times is getting ready to dismiss such a victory as the product of Mr. Gore's personality and of the Nader phenomenon. Smartertimes.com wouldn't expect a news article in the Times to endorse the idea that Mr. Bush is winning because voters agree with him on the issues, but in an article that is purportedly based on what "political analysts said," it seems strange that the article doesn't even consider the substance explanation as a possibility.
Pyongyang Pander: A front-page Times dispatch from Pyongyang today includes the following sentence: "The incongruity of Dr. Albright, who has made democracy a leitmotif, applauding a mass propaganda show dedicated to the 55th anniversary of the Korean Workers Party, was most likely lost on her hosts." Oh? Smartertimes.com reckons that the secretary of state's North Korean hosts knew exactly what they were up to in putting a representative of America in the position of applauding their odious display. The incongruity wasn't lost on them; they were most likely relishing every second of it.
Muslim Holy Sites: An article in the metro section of today's Times refers to the violence "that erupted after the visit of Ariel Sharon, the hard-line Israeli politician, to Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem." Usually, the Times refers to the Temple Mount as a site holy to both Muslims and Jews. This latest version of the events omits any reference to the fact that Mr. Sharon was visiting a Jewish holy site, making it sound like the site in question is holy only to Muslims. Never mind the fact that Mr. Sharon didn't actually visit the Muslim holy sites but just walked around on a plaza outside them.