An article in the metro section of today's New York Times reports on a deal between Mayor Giuliani and unions for some of the city's uniformed employees, including firefighters, sanitation workers and corrections officers. "In announcing the deal, the mayor said that the city would institute $500 million in spending reductions and revenue enhancements to cover the cost of the agreements and to make up for an anticipated shortfall in state aid," the Times reports.
"Revenue enhancements"? Talk about a euphemism. How much of that $500 million is going to be spending reductions and how much is going to be "revenue enhancements," a Times reader already frustrated at living in a city with one of the highest tax burdens in the U.S. might reasonably wonder? And how exactly are these revenues going to be "enhanced"? By increased taxes? By increased service fees? By better collection? By soaking the rich?
Media Rules: An editorial in today's New York Times calls for Congressional hearings on "the preservation of diversity in the media business and the dangers of excessive consolidation." The Times seems to want these hearings to focus on Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp., which, the Times warns, now owns two New York television stations, which will have "a combined 11 percent share of viewers in the market." Well, given that the Times is so eager for congressional intervention in this issue, how about hearings on what percent share of New York department-store advertising the Times has? How about hearings on what percent of the Eastern and Central Massachusetts newspaper market the New York Times, the Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette -- all owned by the Times company -- have? Somehow those subjects are left out of the Times editorial. Maybe the Times would have a different view of Congressional intervention in these matters if Congress were probing the Times's corporate interests and not those of News Corp., which owns the New York Post. It's not like the Times Company has exactly a heroic record on the question of diversity and consolidation in the media business.
Carmi Gillon: A front-page article in today's New York Times reports on a controversy over Israel's ambassador to Denmark, Carmi Gillon. The Times reports that Mr. Gillon "was the Shin Bet chief in the mid-1990's" and that "there was some talk in Copenhagen about arresting Mr. Gillon the moment he stepped off the plane." The Danish reaction is ridiculous; Mr. Gillon is an ardent dove who was director-general of the Peres Center for Peace and, as the Times itself reported on August 16, 1998, was on the advisory council of the Israel Policy Forum, a dovish group allied with the dovish wing of Israel's Labor Party. On May 12, 1998, Mr. Gillon published an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times criticizing Prime Minister Netanyahu for not yielding to American and Arab pressure to withdraw from an additional 13% of the West Bank. For the Times to identify Mr. Gillon solely as a former head of the Shin Bet without mentioning his more recent activities as an advocate of a negotiated settlement with the Palestinian Arabs gives readers a mistaken impression.
Camp David: A New York Times editorial this morning claims: "Camp David fell short because of insufficient preparation and a lack of trust and chemistry between the two leaders." That is a pretty shallow analysis. The reason the Israelis and the Palestinian Arabs didn't trust each other was that the Palestinian Arabs hadn't renounced terrorism or reconciled themselves to Israel's existence. That goes somewhat beyond "a lack of trust and chemistry."