A New York Times article labeled "news analysis" in the national section of today's paper describes the defeat of a campaign finance bill sponsored by Senator Hagel of Nebraska. The Times reports that "the measure was a colossal failure, losing the votes even of many Republicans."
How "many" Republicans actually voted against the Hagel bill? The "news analysis" doesn't say, but an accompanying, presumably "analysis-free," news article reports that on the vote on which Mr. Hagel lost the most Republicans, he lost 12 of them. Does 12 constitute "many"?
Well, one standard of comparison would be the House of Representatives vote on the rate-reduction part of the Bush tax cut. On that vote, the Times reported March 9, 2001, "In the end, no Republicans voted against the bill, and only 10 Democrats broke ranks and voted for it."
Yes, Smartertimes.com realizes there are more members of the House of Representatives than there are senators. Even so, it is interesting how the Times news department describes 10 Democrats breaking party ranks to support a tax cut as "only," and 12 Republicans breaking party ranks with the effect of advancing efforts to restrict free speech as "many." No doubt it's purely a coincidence that the Times has editorially opposed the Bush tax cut and editorially supported the alternative to the Hagel bill.
Smartertimes.com is eagerly awaiting the next time that 11 congressmen break party ranks on a bill. Eleven is on the cusp between 10 ("only") and 12 ("many"). Would the Times describe the 11 as "many" or "only"? Surely this is purely a question of math and not a question of what party they are from and whether the Times editorially supports or opposes the legislation at issue.
Late Again: The "Workplace" section of today's New York Times features an article that runs under the headline "W-2's Swallowed by Dot-Com Black Hole." This is old news to readers of the Los Angeles Times. On March 21, 2001, the L.A. Times's Karen Kaplan wrote virtually the same story on the front page in the paper's famous "Column One" slot. A headline and summary in the Los Angeles paper said, "Dot-Com Failures Tax Workers' Consciences; Some firms that folded last year have disappeared along with their records. With no W2s or 1099s, some laid-off employees are tempted to ignore their obligations to the IRS." Once again, the New York Times waddles in behind the Los Angeles Times. And, as usual, the New York paper fails to credit the L.A. paper for getting there first.
New Pragmatism: A dispatch from Hebron in the international section of today's New York Times reports, "His response, if any, could prove to be the first test of how Mr. Sharon negotiates between his old instincts as a warrior and his new ones as a leader who strives to be pragmatic." Ariel Sharon has always been a pragmatist, dating back at least to when he oversaw the Israeli withdrawal from Sinai under the Camp David agreement with Egypt some two decades ago.