The metro section of today's New York Times carries a full news article on the fact that three left-wing Yale professors are protesting the university's decision to grant an honorary degree to President George W. Bush. The article doesn't mention the controversy and protest over the selection of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as Class Day speaker at Yale. That controversy has been reported in William F. Buckley's syndicated column, in National Review Online, and in the Yale Daily News. But, unless Smartertimes.com missed it (and also missed it in a double-check of the Times online archives), the New York Times has imposed a news blackout on the Yale-Hillary flap. It's hard to figure out why the Times would consider it newsworthy that liberals are protesting a commencement honor for Mr. Bush, but consider it not newsworthy that conservatives are protesting a commencement honor for Ms. Clinton.
Sin of Omission: A flattering profile in the House and Home section of today's New York Times describes Harding and Mary Lawrence and a house they owned in the South of France. Given that the article goes on at such length and makes reference to "the Lawrences' spirit, a combination of American energy and European refinement," you would think the Times might have found room to mention the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence have formally renounced their American citizenship.
What's a Subsidy?: The lead, front-page news article in today's New York Times, about Mr. Bush's energy policy, reports "There are no credits or other tax breaks for oil or gas producers, or electric utilities -- a reflection of the sensitivity of the White House to criticism that Mr. Cheney and other top officials spent their private-sector years in the energy industry. But the tone of deregulation, reassessment of the merits of the Clean Air Act and the emphasis on opening of federal land to more energy production -- everything from wind power to oil and gas drilling -- provides those industries with effective subsidies totaling in the billions of dollars." It's not quite clear how deregulation amounts to a "subsidy." The complaint against subsidies is that they distort the efficiencies of free markets. So do regulations. In that sense, deregulation is more like removing a subsidy than providing one. A better word than subsidies might be "advantages." It's also unclear how a mere "tone" can be worth billions of dollars. Doesn't there have to be actual deregulation, and not just the tone of it, before there's any change in the earnings of the energy companies?