An update about the new newspaper to be launched in New York City is available this morning at http://www.NewYorkSun.com
Angered: A dispatch from Washington in the national section of today's New York Times reports on revisions to Clinton administration rules covering wetlands. "The steps outlined today by the Army Corps angered environmental advocates, who accused the administration of capitulating to the interests of developers and miners and jeopardizing ecologically sensitive areas," the Times reports. The news article goes on to quote "the managing attorney of Earthfirst, an environmental law firm" (never mind that the law firm is Earthjustice, and Earthfirst is something else) and "the wetlands lobbyist for the National Wildlife Federation." Both oppose the rule changes. "Environmental groups said the administration, under pressure from home builders and coal miners, was reducing its oversight role in the name of slashing bureaucracy," the Times reports.
The Times news article quotes not a single coal miner, not a single developer and not a single home builder. If you want to know what home builders think about the matter, you have to read the Washington Post, which reports this morning, "Susan Asmus, a vice president of the National Association of Home Builders, described the changes as a modest but welcome improvement. The builders sued to try to stop the Clinton administration's stricter rules, a suit that is pending. 'We're happy the Corps has not taken the opportunity to clamp down further,' Asmus said. 'To the extent that they're reducing some of the excessive burdens, that's good.'" Or you could read the Los Angeles Times, which reports, "Developers welcomed what they said is much-needed flexibility in the rules, and they said they are hoping the administration will continue to roll back onerous regulations. 'California home builders need as much flexibility as possible to build homes,' said Brian White, legislative representative for the California Building Industry Assn. 'We look forward to working with the administration for more changes.'"
It's a classic example of the difference between an unfair news article and a more fair one. The New York Times article quotes two environmental groups; the Washington Post story and the Los Angles Times article each quote one environmental group and one developer. It's as if the New York Times, while happy to accept advertising from real estate developers, doesn't want to stoop so low as to sully itself by actually quoting in its news columns someone who represents the developers' point of view. None of the articles get into the quite relevant fact that the definition of a wetland has become so all-inclusive that, while the word evokes sweeping, wildlife-filled places such as Everglades National Park, for regulatory purposes the term now just about includes everything down to a parking lot puddle.
Managed Care: A dispatch from Kandahar, Afghanistan, in today's New York Times reports on "the Taliban's rigid rules that had made teaching and practicing medicine nearly impossible in Afghanistan." The Times reports that, "In addition to forbidding medical students to use skeletons and cadavers, the Taliban banned women from medical schools and prevented men who were physicians from examining patients who were women. They forbade women studying nursing to look at images of the human body."
In large display type accompanying this article, the Times announces, "Mullah Omar supervised the ultimate in managed care." The news article makes no reference to managed care, so it looks like what happened was some copy editor in New York was looking to add a dose of wry humor to an otherwise stirring and somewhat grave article. But it sounds a wrong note. No matter what one thinks of managed care in America -- which can sometimes be frustrating and cruel and harmful but can also at times be a way to ensure better medical care at lower cost -- the idea that the Taliban system is its "ultimate" or logical extreme goes beyond the claims of even the most determined critics of managed care in America. One might as well call the Taliban system "the ultimate in government-run and government-regulated care." But then the laugh would be at the expense of government regulators, not HMOs; naturally, the Times sees the humor in the other direction. The dispatch from Kandahar is compelling enough on its own terms; there's no need to stretch for a comparison to the health care woes of Americans, which seem trivial by comparison.
Can't Spell: A dispatch from Washington in the business section of today's New York Times refers to the chief of staff of Rep. Henry Waxman as "Philip M. Schilaro." If the Times is going to go to the trouble of including Mr. Schiliro's middle initial, it could at least spell his last name correctly. The Times had Mr. Schiliro's name spelled correctly on yesterday's op-ed page, but in today's business section the paper gets the name wrong.