The lead editorial in today's New York Times, about the anthrax attacks that have killed four persons and closed buildings in New York, Washington, New Jersey and Florida, concludes by saying of the attacks, "These are tragedies for the individual victims but not, so far, a mass threat to the public."
One can see the temptation to reassure the public in an effort to avoid panic, but that closing line strikes Smartertimes.com as callous and unjustified. If the secretary of health and human services, Tommy Thompson, came out with that kind of remark, you can bet that the Times editorialists and columnists would be all over him for trying to downplay the threat. The "tragedies" here extend beyond the individual victims to their families and friends and to the tens of thousands of additional Americans who have had their lives altered by false anthrax threats, by testing and by new security precautions. Subways have been delayed, offices have been evacuated, the House of Representatives was shut down, the Supreme Court has been forced from its courthouse. To say that "These are tragedies for the individual victims but not, so far, a mass threat to the public" misses the point. It sure looks like these individuals are being targeted as part of an effort to threaten the public.
Photo-Less Obit: The New York Times today carries an obituary of a photographer who the paper says was on the staff of the Times "from 1967 until he retired in 1996." It seems strange that the Times did not illustrate the obituary with any pictures taken by the photographer, or with any pictures at all, for that matter. The obituary says the man was "a top general assignment photographer" who "won awards within the Times" and who "won the George Polk Memorial Award for photo reporting in 1955 for a picture taken for United Press of Helen Keller, who was blind and deaf, 'listening' by using her fingertips, to Eleanor Roosevelt." It also says the man was "especially noted for his pictures of the Kennedy administration." So why not show at least one of these images to Times readers?
Can't Spell: A news article in the metro section of today's New York Times renders a last name as "Lehman." The metro section also includes excerpts from the interview that the article is based on, in which the last name is rendered "Leahman."
Can't Count: A news article on the front page of today's New York Times reports, "American officials flew to Pakistan to discuss ways of preventing Pakistan's small arsenal of nuclear weapons, said to number fewer than 20, from falling into the hands of extremists if the government was toppled by Islamic militants within the army." Never mind the grammatical point that the "if" calls for a "were," not a "was." Never mind the falsely reassuring "small" -- 19 nuclear weapons doesn't seem like such a small arsenal if you are on the receiving end of it. (Ask the Japanese.) The passive "said to number" leaves out who it is that is doing the saying. The New Yorker reports this week that "According to United States government estimates, Pakistan now has at least twenty-four warheads."
Can't Count: A dispatch from Kandahar in today's New York Times reports on Taliban claims that 11 people were killed at a Red Crescent dispensary there. That report quotes a man who identified himself as the owner of the bombed buildings as saying that "3 people, not 11, had been killed." Yet a front-page article from Washington in today's Times reports "Taliban officials said that air strikes hit a medical dispensary belonging to the Red Crescent and a neighboring house before dawn today, killing 13, and they escorted a group of foreign journalists and television crews to the site."
The front-page article from Washington puts the Taliban claim at 13 and doesn't mention the countervailing claim that 3 people had been killed. The article from Kandahar puts the Taliban claim at 11 and notes the countervailing claim that 3 people, not 11, had been killed. Granted there's a war going on and it is hard to get an exact fix on the number of deaths in a raid on enemy territory. But it would confuse readers less if the Times editors could catch some of the factual contradictions in the newspaper's own news report before it hits the streets. That way the reader who sees only the front-page article from Washington might not be left with a wrong impression about the death toll.