To read today's New York Times coverage of yesterday's Republican primary in the race for New Jersey governor, you'd think the election wasn't to be chief executive officer, but chief abortion officer. In the second paragraph of a front-page news article, the Times describes the winner of the primary, Bret Schundler, as "an ardent opponent of abortion." An editorial refers to Mr. Schundler's "fervent opposition to abortion rights." A short article in the metro section refers no less than four times to Mr. Schundler's "condemning abortion," "capturing the loyalty of anti-abortion conservatives," "condemning abortions" and support for curtailing abortion rights if he could build a majority for such a move. And if Times readers still haven't gotten the point, there is yet a fourth item in today's paper that dwells on Mr. Schundler's views on abortion, an "Our Towns" column that runs in the metro section.
Never mind that Mr. Schundler is on the record as saying that "reasonable Americans may disagree over the question of when human life should be constitutionally protected." Never mind that, as the Times itself reports low down in one inside story, "During the race, Mr. Schundler emphasized bread-and-butter issues like cutting taxes and ending parkway tolls."
Chestnuts in the Fire: The Times metro section's news article on Mr. Schundler's victory event reports that Mr. Schundler favored "standard Republican chestnuts like supporting lower taxes." Webster's Second Unabridged defines "chestnut" in this sense as "an old, worn-out joke or phrase; a cliche; also, a very familiar story, plot, or piece of music." Smartertimes.com is looking forward to the day when the Times refers to "standard Democratic chestnuts like supporting health care for the elderly and protecting the environment." Why is it the Democrats have "issues," but Republicans have "chestnuts"?
Porn Overkill: A near-second to the New York Times overkill on the Schundler-abortion issue this morning is the treatment the paper gives to the crucial public policy question of whether Justice Clarence Thomas rented pornographic videos. This matter consumes a full-length news article and a column on the op-ed page. The news story is impenetrable, filled with convoluted sentences like, "Mr. Paoletta denied Mr. Brock's statement that Mr. Paoletta had told Mr. Brock that Justice Thomas had often rented pornographic movies from a store named Graffiti Video when Anita Hill worked for him." Where is the chorus of those defending President Clinton for his "private" behavior and decrying the politics of personal destruction when you need them?
Anti-Immigration: A "Trends" item in the Workplace section of today's New York Times carries a quote from a man identified as "research director of the Center for Immigration Studies." He claims that the latest immigrants were "less educated relative to natives than previous immigrants" and that they drove down wages for people at the bottom of the economic ladder by 7 percent in real terms over the past decade. The "Center for Immigration Studies" sounds innocuous and self-explanatory enough, but in fact it is an advocacy group whose own Web site acknowledges that it is animated by a "low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants." The Times might have shared that information with its readers so that they could weigh the center's claims with appropriate skepticism.
Unpopular: An article in the national section of today's New York Times reports on a House vote to restrict Mexican trucks. "Its passage underscores how politically unpopular the North American Free Trade Agreement is," the Times reports. Just how unpopular is NAFTA? A 1996 Time/CNN poll asked "Should America withdraw from NAFTA?" Thirty-four percent of respondents said yes and 48 percent said no. When Gallup asked in May 2000 about NAFTA's impact on the United States, Americans chose "good impact" over "bad impact" by 47% to 39%. The Times seems misinformed about "how politically unpopular the North American Free Trade Agreement is."
Ending Corporate Welfare: The New York Times has a lead editorial today titled "Ending Corporate Welfare" railing against "subsidies to business." No word in the editorial about the massive special tax breaks the Times Company has extracted from the city and state of New York for its new headquarters tower near Times Square. Talk about corporate welfare. The Times seems to be against corporate welfare when it goes to shipbuilders in Trent Lott's home state, but for corporate welfare when it goes to subsidize its own shareholders.