Today's New York Times features a front-page photograph of shoppers taking advantage of post-Christmas sales. Given the number of shoppers and stores in New York City, and given the Times's ample staff of New York-based photographers, you'd think the Times might have been able to find a front-page photo of shoppers in New York. Nope. Today's front-page photo cutline says "Chicago shoppers took advantage of big price cuts the day after Christmas, as retailers cleared out inventory." It's another example of the way the Times's business strategy of being a national newspaper is affecting the content of the newspaper. There is a sidebar in today's Times business section about shopping in New York, but it is buried inside the business section beneath yet another picture from Illinois. The national shopping story gets front-page placement, while the New York story gets shunted inside the business section. If the Times is going to cover retailing with two photos from Illinois and one photo from New York, the newspaper should change its name to the Illinois Times.
New?: A dispatch from Brussels in the international section of today's New York Times reports on human rights cases in the Belgian courts. "Three new complaints involve Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon," the Times reports in the second paragraph of today's article. Just how "new" are these court complaints? Way down in the article, there is a reference to "In June, when the first of three lawsuits against Mr. Sharon and several military officers was filed in Brussels." Only by the slow-moving standards of the Times news department is a lawsuit filed in June still "new" on December 27.
Offenses: An article in the metro section of today's New York Times describes Mayor-elect Bloomberg's intention "to roll back such offenses as prostitution and panhandling." A pull-quote in the article reads "Following in Giuliani's steps to confront crimes like panhandling." Well, as readers familiar with the First Amendment know, panhandling is not a crime. What is an offense, and a crime, is aggressive panhandling. This is defined carefully and specifically in New York City Local Law 80 of 1996, which also including the findings: "The council recognizes a constitutional right to beg or solicit in a peaceful and non-threatening manner. The council finds, however, that an increase in aggressive solicitation throughout the city has become extremely disturbing and disruptive to residents and businesses, and has contributed not only to the loss of access to and enjoyment of public places, but also to an enhanced sense of fear, intimidation and disorder. Aggressive panhandling usually includes approaching or following pedestrians, the use of abusive language, unwanted physical contact, or the intentional blocking of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The council further finds that the presence of individuals who solicit money from persons at or near banks or automated teller machines is especially troublesome."
To speak of "crimes like panhandling" makes no more sense than speaking of "crimes like driving." Drunk driving is a crime; aggressive panhandling is a crime. Driving is legal. Panhandling is legal (except in certain places like subways and airports where some courts have found that First Amendment rights are subject to greater restriction than on the sidewalks.) Blurring the distinction between criminal behavior and constitutionally protected free speech does a disservice to panhandlers, to politicians, to police and to the public.