Here's a sentence from an editorial in today's New York Times. "The rushed process suggests an awareness by Mr. Bush and the Republican Senate leadership that they need to pass the tax cut before Americans find out about it." This is just priceless. George W. Bush spent millions of dollars on campaign advertisements trying to make sure Americans found out about his tax cut. The New York Times has printed hundreds of news articles and dozens of editorials and opinion pieces about it. There were three presidential debates in the general election in which Mr. Bush discussed his tax-cutting plans, and more debates during the primary season. Does the Times editorial board really believe that the American people are so ignorant, detached or stupid that they haven't found out yet about the Bush tax cut? It's hard to square that belief with the Times' editorial support for campaign finance "reform" that would limit the money that political parties and independent groups could spend on informing Americans about tax cuts and other policy and political issues.
Sulzberger's Salary: The business section of today's New York Times devotes acres of space to a "special report" on executive pay. It's funny how, while skewering a number of highly paid executives and their companies, the newspaper omits any mention of its own executive compensation practices. Reuters reported on March 6 that the chairman of the New York Times Company, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who is also the publisher of the New York Times, "received a pay compensation package valued at about $4.7 million in 2000, up from $3.7 million in the previous year."
Denise Rich's Shoes: The Sunday Styles section of today's New York Times includes an interview with Denise Rich, the Democratic Party donor who asked President Clinton to pardon her ex-husband, fugitive commodities trader Marc Rich. Denise Rich is a person that serious reporters at the Times and other newspapers have lots of questions for. They could ask her why she chose to take the Fifth Amendment in the congressional probe of the pardon. They could ask her more about her relationship with President Clinton.
Instead, here is how the Times handles an encounter between a representative of its news department and Ms. Rich, as reported in today's paper: "Mother Rich was soon installed at the table. She's a forcefully charming sort of person who, when quizzed about the coveted shoes, took one off and held it over her plate to squint and read the instep. 'Versace,' she said. She beamed at her daughter, who wore bright red lipstick, purple and gold eye shadow, purple acrylic hair extensions rolled Princess Leia style on each side of her face, and multi-colored glitter. 'She just lives in another dimension,' Denise Rich said. 'I don't know where she gets it from. I'm afraid to mix colors and patterns. For her it all works.'" If this Times reporter was allowed to hang out with Denise Rich and interview her on the condition that no questions be asked about the pardons and the donations, then the Times should disclose it to readers.
If the Times asked about the pardons and Denise Rich refused to answer, then that, too, should be disclosed to readers. Otherwise the newspaper looks like it is buttering up Ms. Rich in the hope of obtaining a more substantive interview with her in the future. Or the newspaper looks like it is displaying a strange lack of curiosity about the Rich pardon and Denise Rich's involvement in winning it.