The national section of today's New York Times includes an article that runs under the headline "Lott Rebuked for Delaying Campaign Bill." It reports that "The lone Democrat opposing the measure, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, did so because the resolution was added to education legislation that he was trying to protect from unrelated amendments." How can the New York Times, without actually being inside Senator Kennedy's brain, be so sure of what motivated his opposition? It would be more careful to say Senator Kennedy "said he did so," or an aide to Senator Kennedy "said he did so," or to somehow otherwise explain to Times readers how the newspaper is able to so thoroughly assess the senator's motivations and state of mind.
Cash and Carry: An article in the "Dining In, Dining Out" section of today's New York Times reports on restaurants that accept cash only. The Times passes along unchallenged the claim of one restaurant owner that, "If I sell a piece of fish with a credit card, I have to charge $21.95. If I cut out the processing companies and the credit card companies, I can charge $16.95." This really calls for comment from a representative of a credit card company, who could point out that the percentage that such companies take from a purchase is not nearly as large as that fishy anecdote suggests.
Understatement of the Day: A New York Times editorial on electricity in California says, "The link between capping prices and increasing supply is not self-evident." This, in an editorial in favor of imposing a cap on wholesale electricity prices in California.
Blaming the Mayor: Another editorial in today's New York Times, about Mayor Giuliani, says, "The downside of the Giuliani years could be linked to his personal qualities: his temper, his tense relations with the minority communities and his bullying of public officials who have crossed him." How is "tense relations with the minority communities" a personal quality of the mayor? Is the Times claiming that the mayor's "tense relations" with minority communities are entirely the fault of the mayor's personality and not at all related to his policies or to the shrill irresponsibility of some minority "leaders"? What exactly does the Times mean by "minority communities," anyway? The Jews are a minority and they like the mayor quite fine, for the most part. Why would minority communities react differently to the mayor's personal qualities than any other communities would? The Times editorial doesn't explain any of this, instead setting up a dichotomy between the mayor's "accomplishments" and his "personality," as if the two were unrelated.