An article in the national section of today's New York Times runs under the headline, "Bush's Budget Would Cut 3 Programs to Aid Children." The headline is inelegantly worded: What the Times is really trying to say is that Bush's budget would cut three programs that aid children, and that, in so doing, it would hurt children. But read to the end of the article, and it turns out that one of the programs isn't a program to help children, but to subsidize pediatricians and hospitals. And pediatricians and hospital executives already make a lot of money without additional subsidies from the taxes paid, in part, by people in less well-paid professions. The Times reports that "In December, Congress also provided $235 million for a new program to train pediatricians and other doctors at children's hospitals across the country. Bush administration officials said the White House Office of Management and Budget had made a preliminary decision to seek large cuts in this program." The Times quotes one Republican congresswoman expressing concern about the cuts, asserting, "We really need the money for training of physicians who deal directly with children." In 1995, American pediatricians earned $140,000 a year on average, according to American Medical Association data quoted by the Puget Sound Business Journal. A "program to aid children" might be one that stopped taking money from the parents of children and giving it to already-wealthy pediatricians and soon-to-be wealthy pediatricians-in-training.
Sure to Rankle: An article in the national section of today's New York Times reports on energy legislation introduced by Democrats. "The legislation, in an approach sure to rankle Republicans, calls for limits by 2008 on the amount of fuel that light trucks and sport utility vehicles, which consume more gas than cars, can use," the Times reports. By writing that the approach is "sure to rankle Republicans," the Times saves itself the effort and the unpleasant task of actually going out and interviewing Republicans to see if they are rankled.
Late Again: How slow is the New York Times on local news? An article in today's metro section reports on a surge in marriages in New York as a result of a provision in immigration law. The article reports that "other cities with large immigrant populations, like Chicago and Los Angeles," have also experienced marriage booms. Well, the Los Angeles Times reported this on March 15, 2001, under the headline "Thousands of Immigrants Race to Say 'I Do' So They Can Say 'We Stay.'" The Los Angeles Times was able to detect the marriage boom in Los Angeles and report it fully a week faster than the New York Times was able to detect the marriage boom in New York and report it.
Late Again: How slow is the New York Times on local news? An article in today's metro section runs under the headline "When Politics Is in the Blood" and reports on the children of New York city council members. The children are in many cases running for the seats that their parents are being forced to vacate because of term limits. The Daily News had this news on February 26, 2001, under the headline "It's Family Affair in Election; Incumbents' relatives making a grab for City Council seats." Today's New York Times article makes no mention of the earlier report in the News.