Friday, May 05, 2006

NYT: Doesn't cover Rumsfeld's Atlanta appearance

Antiwar protesters repeatedly interrupted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld during a speech Thursday, and one man, a former CIA analyst, accused him in a question-and-answer session of lying about prewar intelligence on Iraq.
"Why did you lie to get us into a war that caused these kind of casualties and was not necessary?" asked Ray McGovern, the former analyst.

"I did not lie," shot back Rumsfeld, who waved off security guards ready to remove McGovern from the hall at the Southern Center for International Studies.
With support for the war in Iraq remaining low, it is not unusual for top administration officials to encounter protests and hostile questions.
But the outbursts Rumsfeld confronted on Thursday seemed beyond the usual.

Three protesters were escorted away by security as each interrupted Rumsfeld's speech by jumping up and shouting antiwar messages. Throughout the speech, a fourth protester stood up in the middle of the room with his back to Rumsfeld in silent protest.

Yes, the above is from Shannon McCaffrey's "Rumsfeld Is Confronted by Antiwar Protesters" (Associated Press) and we noted a version of it last night. But it's just so good you have to note it again! Seriously, Martha saw this version of McCaffrey's article online at the Washington Post and noted that the New York Times, which does carry AP stories, elected not to provide this online. Was it too much for the Grey Lady or are they working up a "news analysis" of the event to run this weekend?

Brady pairs two articles from the Times and we're not noting them. Brady take it just a little further and you've got the promised feature for The Third Estate Sunday Review. Otherwise what does the Times offer? Not much, as Martha pointed out in her e-mail. Juan Forero plays "Let's All Talk To The Neoliberals" (which CounterSpin may take up this morning -- may not but it's a good way to plug the show -- new episode airs in some areas today and is available at their website).

In the Times, Kate Zernike's "Use of Contraception Drops, Slowing Decline of Abortion Rate" is a really bad article. How much of that is Zernike's fault, how much is due to the paper's jitters around issues of class and how much of that is due to Bill Keller's desire for short-breezy-pieces is anyone's guess. But it's a bad article -- or bad mini-article since it is so brief. As the Times gears up for it's move to being the text version of CNN's Headline News, will readers stick with the paper/bulletin?

Denise noted, on the same topic, Marc Kaufman's "Unwanted Pregnancies Rise for Poor Women: Rate Drops for Those Well Above Poverty Level, Report Indicates" (Washington Post):

Poor women in America are increasingly likely to have unwanted pregnancies, whereas relatively affluent women are succeeding more and more in getting pregnant only when they want to, according to a study analyzing federal statistics.
As a result of the growing disparity, women living in poverty are now almost four times more likely to become pregnant unintentionally than women of greater means, the study found.

Based on nationwide data collected by the National Center for Health Statistics and other sources, the researchers found that from 1994 through 2001, the rate of unplanned pregnancies increased by almost 30 percent for women below the federal poverty line -- now defined as $16,000 annually for a family of three. For women in families comfortably above poverty, the rate of unplanned pregnancies fell by 20 percent during the same period.
The abortion rate also rose among poor women while declining among the more affluent.

[. . .]
For women earning between $16,000 and $32,000 a year, the number of unintended pregnancies increased from 65 per 1,000 in 1994 to 81 per 1,000 in 2001. But for women in families earning more than $32,000, the number of unplanned pregnancies declined from 37 to 29 per 1,000 women.

The Times, suffering from affluenza, appears to have a difficult time noting hard data or exploring the issues of economic class. (We're all supposed to pretend they don't exist.) Again, that's the paper as a whole so how much to blame on Zernike is anyone's guess. (And Keller wants shorter articles. The editor who hates writing is what he's being dubbed by some.)

And, addition to the opening, a friend's just called to say the Times ("15 minutes ago") did add the AP story (headline with link) to their website, the one on Rumsfeld. (Also see next entry for the one paragraph AP brief in print edition.) Apparently it wasn't "news" until it was a briefer version. (Does Bill Keller really hate writing or is it reading he loathes?)

Remember to listen, watch or read (transcripts) Democracy Now! today.

The e-mail address for this site is