One of the interesting things about the attack on America is that even the New York Times is now increasingly slipping some pro-American bias into its news reporting. Consider the following passage from a front-page article in today's paper: "The worst anti-American demonstrations occurred in Quetta, a city 60 miles from the border with southern Afghanistan. At least one person was shot dead, and police reported that a subinspector had been kidnapped when the central police station was burned in rioting that destroyed several shops and movie theaters. United Nations agency offices were also burned."
By the "worst" anti-American demonstrations the Times doesn't seem to mean those that were the least successful in drawing a crowd; it seems to mean the demonstrations that were the largest and the most violent. When American television news networks show flags on the air, the Times runs ponderous news articles accusing them of slipping from journalism into jingoism. Smartertimes doesn't object to displays of patriotism in the press, and Smartertimes agrees with the apparent position of the Times news department that large, violent anti-American demonstrations are worse than small, peaceful ones. But it is interesting to see this sort of language making its way into a newspaper that makes a pretense of objectivity.
Identifications: An article in today's New York Times refers to "Daniel Benjamin, a former White House official in the Bush administration who is writing a book on religious terror." Mr. Benjamin in fact was a White House official in the Clinton administration.
Another article in today's New York Times refers to "Robert J. Blendon, an expert on public opinion at Harvard." In fact Mr. Blendon is an expert on public opinion in America, not just opinions at Harvard. A more clear and accurate description of him would be "a Harvard expert on public opinion" or "a Harvard professor who is an expert on public opinion."