An article in the international section of today's New York Times reports on the detention in New York of a Russian government official. The official, Pavel Borodin, has apparently been invited to the Bush inauguration by Vincent Zenga, a Republican donor, the Times reports. "The invitation from Mr. Zenga said that Mr. Borodin had been provided with a room at the Westin Fairfax in Fairfax, Va. from Wednesday through Sunday," the Times reports. It's unlikely that the invitation actually identified the Westin Fairfax as being in Fairfax, Va. If it did, it was wrong. The Westin Fairfax Hotel is in fact in Washington, D.C. It's the current name for the hotel near Dupont Circle that used to be the Ritz-Carlton and that also used to be the Fairfax Hotel, in which young Al Gore lived. There is no Westin Hotel in Fairfax, Va.
Sharpton and Jackson: In its article today about the child the Rev. Jesse Jackson fathered out of wedlock, the New York Times manages to continue its courtship of the Rev. Al Sharpton. "Supporters urged people not to condemn Mr. Jackson," the Times reports, noting that, at a news conference in New York City, Rev. Sharpton said, "I remind people that Reverend Jesse Jackson should not be judged by just this situation."
Of all the hundreds of black activists and genuine civil rights leaders in America, the only one quoted in the Times article about Rev. Jackson is Rev. Sharpton. Nothing from the NAACP, nothing from the Urban League. Just Rev. Sharpton, who is misleadingly characterized by the Times as a "supporter" of Rev. Jackson. In fact, as Eli Kintisch wrote in the December 4, 2000, issue of The New Republic, "Over and over in recent years, Jackson and Sharpton have butted heads. . .The conflict seems likely only to intensify." A cynic might suggest that the reason Rev. Sharpton even called the press conference was not to offer support to Rev. Jackson but to call further attention to the news and to grab some of the limelight.
Will Milken Be Pardoned? The New York Times today continues its campaign against a pardon for Michael Milken, this time with a column on the front of the business section. The column comes out strongly against a pardon, and it manages, like almost all of the Times' coverage of the pardon issue, to omit mention of the fact that the man who was the chief Milken prosecutor, Mayor Giuliani, now favors a pardon. The Times column takes Milken to task for claiming that he had no involvement in insider trading. The column calls that claim "historical revisionism at its most impressive."
"The S.E.C. charged him with numerous violations of insider trading laws in concert with Ivan Boesky, the disgraced former takeover stock speculator. It accused him of conspiring with Mr. Boesky to defraud clients of Drexel Burnham Lambert, the brokerage firm Mr. Milken dominated. Mr. Milken avoided pleading to those charges, but he did admit market manipulation of a type that was clearly illegal," the Times writes.
In fairness to Milken, the Times might note that the insider trading charges were made largely on the basis of testimony by Boesky, who, as a convicted felon who was himself seeking mercy from prosecutors, had a bit of a credibility problem. The Times bent over backward to defend President Clinton against charges made by Arkansas figures in the Whitewater scandal who had been "flipped" by prosecutors; now it is treating similar charges made by a flipped Boesky as if they were wholly credible. And what an artful way to cast guilt: "Mr. Milken avoided pleading to those charges." He avoided pleading to them because there wasn't much to them. If the prosecutors had such an airtight case and Milken was so guilty of the insider trading charge, the Feds shouldn't have accepted the plea bargain. But for the Times to go back now, when Milken is being considered for a pardon, and try to attack him for claiming to be innocent of crimes that he was never convicted of is a cheap shot.