The lead editorial in today's New York Times is devoted to criticizing Rep. Rick Lazio for "irresponsible smear attacks" against Hillary Clinton. The Times calls Mr. Lazio's tactics "absurd and extreme" and "unethical." The Times' complaint seems to be that Mr. Lazio's allies made phone calls accusing Hillary Clinton of doing something that she in fact did do -- taking money from sympathizers of terrorists like the ones that attacked the USS Cole. If the Times doesn't think there was anything wrong with Mrs. Clinton taking the money, it should criticize her for having returned the money, which she did after the matter was exposed. By returning the $51,000, Mrs. Clinton is essentially acknowledging the money was tainted, and she opens herself up to legitimate attacks.
But on the topic of "irresponsible smear attacks," consider Mrs. Clinton's TV commercial, titled "Friends," that began running on October 26. A "scorecard" analyzing the ad was buried inside the Times metro section on October 26. The scorecard, prepared by the Times news staff, called the commercial an "attack ad" that is "a flat-out distortion meant to confuse viewers about Mr. Lazio's record in the House." Yet today's editorial about "irresponsible smear attacks" makes no mention of Mrs. Clinton's attack ad, focusing only on Mr. Lazio's legitimate phone calls. It's enough to make a reader suspect that what really bothers the Times is not "irresponsible smear attacks" but the polls showing Mr. Lazio gaining on Mrs. Clinton.
Diet Craze: An article in the national section of today's New York Times rues the demise of a Chicago television newscast that had been attempting to be serious. The Times describes that serious newscast in contrast to those that feature "segments on the latest diet craze." Those unserious programs operate under the assumption, according to the Times, which turns up its nose, "that people need to be drawn in through celebrity gossip and miracle diets introduced by bubby anchormen and anchorwomen." No mention of the Times' own series on obesity that has been running on the front page during the past month under headlines like "Days Off Are Not Allowed, Weight Experts Argue" and "Fraudulent Marketers Capitalize on Demand for Sweat-Free Diets." No mention, either, of the Times' "Public Lives" column, which is filled with celebrity gossip.
Traditionally Democratic: The "Campaign Briefing" column in the national section of today's Times reports that "George W. Bush headed west, for states like California that traditionally vote Democratic." It's a wild overstatement to say that California "traditionally" votes Democratic. Has the Times heard of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan or Pete Wilson? California has recently tended Democratic, but traditionally, it has either been a swing state or Republican.
Dis-Honored: A story on the front of the metro section of today's New York Times reports on efforts to improve the City University of New York. The article reports on a proposal for a new university-wide honors program. "Some professors have expressed concerns that minority students may not be well represented in a university-wide honors program," the Times reports, without further elaboration. Well, it sure would be nice to know who those professors were and how they expressed their concerns. Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.
The Camp David Understandings: The Times runs in its international section today a dispatch from Jerusalem that refers to "the understandings reached at Camp David." As Smartertimes.com pointed out when the Times used this phrase on October 23, this is a misunderstanding of the nonunderstandings. The Times itself reported on July 26 of this year that the Israeli and Arab negotiators left Camp David "empty-handed." The July 26 article referred to "the meeting's failure to produce an agreement." And the July 26 article paraphrased Mr. Barak: "All understandings reached at Camp David, he said conclusively, are moot." In other words, Mr. Barak doesn't have to renounce the "Camp David understandings," because there are none. The summit ended without an agreement, and Mr. Barak said immediately at that time that Israel was not bound by any of the offers it made during the course of the negotiations.