A front-page news article in today's New York Times reports on an agreement by the Senate majority leader, Trent Lott, to bring the McCain-Feingold free-speech-infringement legislation to the Senate floor for a debate. "Mr. Lott's commitment to a debate was significant because Republican leaders have previously used parliamentary tricks and filibusters to stop the bill from ever coming to a final vote," the Times reports.
Why is it that when conservatives outmaneuver the free-speech-infringement forces by using the procedures available under the Senate rules, the Times calls it trickery? When Democrats like Senator Kennedy use the same rules to block conservative maneuvers, the Times calls the maneuvers "tactics" and writes about how the actions demonstrate the impressive mastery of the Senate rules by the Democratic lawmakers.
The only trick here is the one the Times is playing on its readers.
Drowning in the L.A. River: A news article in the national section of today's New York Times reports on efforts to clean up the Los Angeles River. Addressing a related development issue, the Times says, "Joel Reynolds, a senior lawyer with the National Resources Defense Council, said the development, which is supported by the departing mayor, Richard J. Riordan, and the City Council, would not only deprive some of the poorest neighborhoods in the city of much needed parkland, but also become a magnate for diesel trucks, increasing pollution." There are two errors in that one sentence. First, the environmental organization's name is the Natural Resources Defense Council, not the "National" Resources Defense Council. The Times' own stylebook has an entry on this point. Second, the word the Times is looking for is magnet, not "magnate."