An article in the business section of today's New York Times reports, "The latest figures on home sales, consumer confidence, orders for durable goods and claims for unemployment benefits all came in better than anticipated. Despite the pleasant surprises, economists still warned of a feeble recovery next year."
Maybe the Times reader is a bankruptcy lawyer, an investor who shorts stocks, or a radical environmentalist who opposes new housing construction and economic growth. For those people, the news might not be "pleasant" or "better." It would pleasant if the Times would just report the news and let readers decide for themselves whether it is "pleasant" or not.
'Imaginary Enemy': An article in the Arts and Ideas section of today's New York Times reports on a dispute over an artwork at the Memphis Central Library that includes the phrase, "Workers of the world, unite!" Anticommunists have protested the inclusion of the quote. The Times article includes a comment from a New York historian who says, "Politicians jousting over an imaginary enemy is not very productive." The problem is that for the people of China, Cuba and North Korea, who still live under oppressive Communist regimes, this enemy isn't "imaginary." If you are about to be shot in China for the "crime" of trying to organize an alternative political party or an independent labor union, the enemy isn't "imaginary." The enemy is right there about to shoot you.
One can't fault the Times for including comments that are foolish -- part of the job of newspapers is to report when people say foolish things. But the notion that the Communists are an "imaginary" enemy is so outlandish that when the Times passes it along without even a raised eyebrow, the newspaper's own credibility suffers a bit of a dent.
The Times article refers to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels as the source of the "Workers of the world, unite!" quote, but in fact what Marx and Engels wrote in the Communist Manifesto was, "Working men of all countries, unite!"
Can't Spell: A front-page article in today's New York Times refers to "General Musharaff" of Pakistan. Elsewhere in the article the name is spelled as "Musharraf."