The metro section of today's New York Times carries an article that runs under the headline, "Clinton Is Unlikely to Join New York Bar." The article contains a sentence that says, "Mr. Clinton admitted to the independent counsel on Friday that he had lied in a 1998 deposition that he gave in the Paula Jones sexual misconduct case."

This description by the Times goes beyond what Mr. Clinton actually admitted to. In his press statement, Mr. Clinton acknowledged "that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false." And in the consent decree, Mr. Clinton admitted "that he knowingly gave evasive and misleading answers, in violation of Judge Wright's discovery orders."

But, according to the definition of a lie given by Sissela Bok in her authoritative book on the subject -- and according to the legal definition necessary to meet the standard of the crime of perjury -- a lie is a willful falsehood, the act of knowingly telling an untruth. Perhaps the fact that Mr. Clinton can still get away with claiming he did not lie constitutes a flaw in the agreement negotiated by the independent counsel. Perhaps that fact is what allowed a deal to be reached. But a careful parsing of the statements released Friday -- and any statement by Mr. Clinton requires careful parsing -- makes it clear that while Mr. Clinton admits giving false testimony and admits knowingly giving misleading and evasive answers, he never admits to knowingly giving false testimony.

In other words, Mr. Clinton still hasn't admitted the crime that he was impeached for. It's a subtle point, but an important enough one that it is an error for the Times to write that Clinton admitted "that he had lied." Clinton came close to admitting that, but in fact he avoided admitting it.

"Prostrate" Cancer: Smartertimes.com is operating off the early edition of the Times that hits the streets in New York on Saturday nights. And maybe this error will be fixed in later editions. But for the moment, it lends a kind of Archie Bunker flair to a news article on Mr. Clinton's decision not to grant a pardon to Michael Milken. "Mr. Milken had prostrate cancer then, but has in recent years has enjoyed good health," the Times reports. Never mind the extra "has." Milken had cancer in his prostate, not "prostrate."

A front-page dispatch from Washington in today's New York Times reports, "Even before Mr. Clinton had left, there were signs that things were changing in Washington, starting with the choice by Mr. Bush's aides of the Daughters of American Revolution headquarters for the event honoring Mrs. Bush, a venue that would probably not be on the top of the list for any Democratic events."

The word "probably" is enough to set off warning lights at Smartertimes.com headquarters. It is New York Times shorthand for "our reporters and editors couldn't be bothered to check the actual facts, so we are just going to pass along unfiltered our biased liberal assumptions."

Never mind the fact that the Times gets the name of the group wrong; the Times' own stylebook notes that it is "Daughters of the American Revolution," with a "the."

The Boston Globe reported on December 21, 2000: "President Bill Clinton and wife, New York senator-elect Hillary Rodham Clinton , presented the National Medal of the Arts for the Year 2000 yesterday at the DAR Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C."

The Washington Post reported on October 9, 1998, "When Emmylou Harris shares the stage at DAR Constitution Hall on Friday with Willie Nelson, Sheryl Crow and Lucinda Williams, it will benefit the Washington-based Campaign for a Landmine Free World."

The Washington Post reported on May 6, 1996, "In a town full of clever lawyers, tickets to Johnnie Cochran's speech tonight at DAR Constitution Hall weren't moving well at $35 to $100 per. Sales have climbed since they were marked down to $20 and $35."

The Washington Post reported on January 15, 1993, in an article on suggested activities for Chelsea Clinton during her father's first inaugural week: "Peter Himmelman, the JudyBats, the Connells and other WHFS-FM regulars perform at a charity fund-raiser sponsored by the radio station and College Democrats of America at 7 Saturday at DAR Constitution Hall."

And during Clinton's second inaugural, DAR Constitution Hall was the site of a January 18, 1997, benefit concert for an abortion-rights group called Voters for Choice, founded by the feminist Gloria Steinem.

The Times seems to have a dated image of DAR Constitution Hall as a bastion of segregation and Republican exclusivity. In fact, over the past eight years, the venue has hosted President Clinton, Hillary Clinton, singer Willie Nelson, O.J. Simpson's lawyer Johnnie Cochran, a fundraiser for the "Campaign for a Landmine Free World," Gloria Steinem and Voters for Choice, and an event sponsored by the College Democrats of America.

For the Times to note an appearance by Laura Bush there as a sign "that things were changing in Washington" is just unsupported by the evidence. Probably that is why the Times added the word "probably" to its false claim that the venue "would probably not be on the top of the list for any Democratic events."

An article in the international section of today's New York Times reports on the detention in New York of a Russian government official. The official, Pavel Borodin, has apparently been invited to the Bush inauguration by Vincent Zenga, a Republican donor, the Times reports. "The invitation from Mr. Zenga said that Mr. Borodin had been provided with a room at the Westin Fairfax in Fairfax, Va. from Wednesday through Sunday," the Times reports. It's unlikely that the invitation actually identified the Westin Fairfax as being in Fairfax, Va. If it did, it was wrong. The Westin Fairfax Hotel is in fact in Washington, D.C. It's the current name for the hotel near Dupont Circle that used to be the Ritz-Carlton and that also used to be the Fairfax Hotel, in which young Al Gore lived. There is no Westin Hotel in Fairfax, Va.

Sharpton and Jackson: In its article today about the child the Rev. Jesse Jackson fathered out of wedlock, the New York Times manages to continue its courtship of the Rev. Al Sharpton. "Supporters urged people not to condemn Mr. Jackson," the Times reports, noting that, at a news conference in New York City, Rev. Sharpton said, "I remind people that Reverend Jesse Jackson should not be judged by just this situation."

Of all the hundreds of black activists and genuine civil rights leaders in America, the only one quoted in the Times article about Rev. Jackson is Rev. Sharpton. Nothing from the NAACP, nothing from the Urban League. Just Rev. Sharpton, who is misleadingly characterized by the Times as a "supporter" of Rev. Jackson. In fact, as Eli Kintisch wrote in the December 4, 2000, issue of The New Republic, "Over and over in recent years, Jackson and Sharpton have butted heads. . .The conflict seems likely only to intensify." A cynic might suggest that the reason Rev. Sharpton even called the press conference was not to offer support to Rev. Jackson but to call further attention to the news and to grab some of the limelight.

Will Milken Be Pardoned? The New York Times today continues its campaign against a pardon for Michael Milken, this time with a column on the front of the business section. The column comes out strongly against a pardon, and it manages, like almost all of the Times' coverage of the pardon issue, to omit mention of the fact that the man who was the chief Milken prosecutor, Mayor Giuliani, now favors a pardon. The Times column takes Milken to task for claiming that he had no involvement in insider trading. The column calls that claim "historical revisionism at its most impressive."

"The S.E.C. charged him with numerous violations of insider trading laws in concert with Ivan Boesky, the disgraced former takeover stock speculator. It accused him of conspiring with Mr. Boesky to defraud clients of Drexel Burnham Lambert, the brokerage firm Mr. Milken dominated. Mr. Milken avoided pleading to those charges, but he did admit market manipulation of a type that was clearly illegal," the Times writes.

In fairness to Milken, the Times might note that the insider trading charges were made largely on the basis of testimony by Boesky, who, as a convicted felon who was himself seeking mercy from prosecutors, had a bit of a credibility problem. The Times bent over backward to defend President Clinton against charges made by Arkansas figures in the Whitewater scandal who had been "flipped" by prosecutors; now it is treating similar charges made by a flipped Boesky as if they were wholly credible. And what an artful way to cast guilt: "Mr. Milken avoided pleading to those charges." He avoided pleading to them because there wasn't much to them. If the prosecutors had such an airtight case and Milken was so guilty of the insider trading charge, the Feds shouldn't have accepted the plea bargain. But for the Times to go back now, when Milken is being considered for a pardon, and try to attack him for claiming to be innocent of crimes that he was never convicted of is a cheap shot.

The New York Times this morning runs an op-ed piece under the headline, "Bush Wanders Off Center." The article says, "Not surprisingly, the latest polls show more Americans opposing Mr. Ashcroft's appointment than supporting it."

That's false. An ABC News/Washington Post Poll released January 16 found 54% in favor of confirming John Ashcroft as attorney general and just 26% opposed. Even when the question was deliberately slanted by telling respondents that Mr. Ashcroft is opposed by "organized labor and some groups that advocate women's rights, legal abortion, civil rights and gun control," 47% of those polled favor confirming Mr. Ashcroft, and only 43% oppose confirming him.

Instinctively Drawn: An editorial in today's New York Times reports, "Mr. Bush seems instinctively drawn to the classic conservative agenda of trimming high marginal rates, capital gains and estate taxes." When it comes to capital gains, would that it were so. In fact the Bush tax cut plan, unfortunately, contains no reduction in the capital gains tax. Of course, the capital gains tax was already cut sharply under the presidency of that classic conservative, Bill Clinton.

Black Coach: The race-obsessed New York Times does it again this morning with a front-page note about the new coach of a New Jersey-based football team known as the Jets. "Edwards will be the sixth black head coach in N.F.L history," the Times reports on the front page.

Smartertimes.com could maybe understand making a big deal of the league's first black head coach. But the sixth?

There's more. The Times sports section runs a 22-paragraph article about the new coach. A full five paragraphs are devoted to his race. Here's a flavor: "In a league that has struggled to increase the profile of minority coaches, Edwards's hiring will have significant resonance. He will be the sixth black head coach in National Football League history and the third active black head coach. The other current black head coaches in the N.F.L. are Dennis Green, the coach of the Minnesota Vikings, and Tony Dungy of Tampa Bay, who had Edwards as his assistant and defensive backs coach for the last five seasons. Edwards will be the first black head coach of a professional football team in New York."

Dix Hills: An article in the arts section of today's New York Times discusses drug abuse and refers to "Dix Hills, an affluent community on Long Island built atop new money." This is an inelegant wording that makes it sound like the community was physically built atop a pile of new money (not the most stable foundation). But it's also imprecise and not particularly accurate. Dix Hills is nice, but affluent is probably a bit of a stretch. And what in the world is the Times talking about when it refers to "new money"? How old must the money be before the Times stops sneering at it as "new money"?

News Blackout: The New York Times today manages to totally omit any mention of the fact that the Rev. Al Sharpton, a possible candidate for mayor of New York, is now the subject of an arrest warrant in St. Louis. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported yesterday on the issuance of an arrest warrant for Rev. Sharpton because of his failure to pay a fine for blocking an interstate highway during a 1999 protest. The Times slavishly covers Rev. Sharpton's every complaint against the New York police. The Times dutifully reported the Martin Luther King Day spectacle hosted by Rev. Sharpton this week, at which virtually every big-time New York Democratic politician -- even those like Peter Vallone and Alan Hevesi who should know better -- showed up to pay homage to the racial demagogue. But the fact that there is a warrant out for Rev. Sharpton's arrest is apparently not news that's fit to print.

A dispatch from the Associated Press reprinted in the "World Briefing" column of today's New York Times reports, "Norway, the only country that conducts commercial whale hunts, said it was lifting its ban on the export of whale meat and products."

Realistically, Norway is not "the only country that conducts commercial whale hunts." As Senator Baucus put it on November 1, 2000, in a letter to the Japanese ambassador to America: "Despite the Japanese government acceptance of the moratorium on commercial whaling, it is clear to most impartial observers that Japan, in fact, is using the pretext of scientific research to engage in commercial activities."

Democrats for Pollution: An article in the national section of today's New York Times reports, "In a victory for environmental groups and a blow to Miami-Dade County officials, the Clinton administration rejected a plan today to convert the former Homestead Air Force Base into a commercial airport." The article discusses at length the fact that one of the "strongest local supporters" of the commercial airport plan was Miami Mayor Alex Penelas. And it notes that environmental groups said "the airport would generate noise and air pollution that would harm the Everglades." It's just strange that the article neglects to mention that Penelas is a Democrat. It's a newsworthy fact, because it is unusual for a Democrat to so openly put business and transportation interests ahead of environmental concerns.

Race at the FCC: An article in the national section of today's New York Times about racial counting rules in the broadcast industry makes a point of mentioning that a proponent of the rules, William Kennard, is "the first black chairman of the Federal Communications Commission." The article goes on to say that Mr. Kennard "is widely expected to be replaced by Michael Powell, a Republican commissioner who voted to approve the current rules but has also expressed skepticism about many kinds of affirmative-action programs. Mr. Powell has said insufficient evidence exists to show a connection between diversity in employment and diversity in content offered by the nation's radio and television broadcasters." The Times article omits the fact that Mr. Powell is black. Maybe there's a rule at the Times that only those who aren't skeptical of affirmative action are labeled as black.

News Blackout: The New York Times today omits any mention of Mayor Giuliani's remarks yesterday in support of a pardon of Michael Milken. The New York Post has the story under the headline "Rudy urges pardon for Milken."

The New York Times today runs on the front of its metro section a dispatch from a truck stop at Manadahill, Pa. The truck stop is, the article says, "about 160 miles southwest of Manhattan." Then what, you might wonder, is the story doing in the "metro" section of the New York Times? Is New York City so boring that the Times reporters and editors can't come up with enough good story ideas about it to fill the front of the metro section? Never mind New York City; can the Times also not find any stories worth reporting in the tri-state area of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut? The story rightfully belongs in the national section, but maybe the editors there were reluctant to take it; after all, a story from a truck stop just ran in the Times national section on January 12. That story, by a different reporter, was datelined Grantville, Pa., which turns out to be just the next town over from Manadahill. How much appetite Times readers have for reportage from truck stops in a small area of Pennsylvania is anyone's guess.

Negotiable: A front-page article in today's New York Times reports on a drop in rents for Manhattan apartments. In Manhattan, "landlords have become negotiable, lowering rents in individual deals," the article says. As for Brooklyn, "Only in the high-rent parts of Brooklyn Heights are landlords slightly more negotiable these days," the article reports. This use of the word "negotiable" doesn't fit any of the dictionary definitions. The Times means to say that the landlords have become more willing to negotiate.

Emerson: A front-page article on "Holy Warriors" in today's New York Times again refers to "Steven Emerson, an American expert on Islamic terrorism." Which again raises the question: If Mr. Emerson is simply "an American expert on Islamic terrorism," why did the Times refer to him so dismissively in an October 26, 2000, article on ties between the Hillary Clinton campaign and American supporters of Islamic terrorist groups? That article referred to "Steven Emerson, who identified himself as a freelance journalist preparing a magazine article on terrorism; he became well known when he initially strongly suggested that the Oklahoma City bombing was the work of Arab terrorists."

Clarification: Yesterday's edition of Smartertimes.com referred to an item in the December 26, 2000, New York Times about Mayor Giuliani's support for a pardon of Michael Milken. The item appeared in the metro section gossip column, which Smartertimes.com noted does not appear in editions of the Times distributed outside the New York region. The New York Times has since notified Smartertimes.com that the Milken-Giuliani item in fact did appear in the paper's national, New England and Washington editions as part of the "New York Digest" that runs in those copies.

Under the guise of a "correction," the New York Times today publishes in its national section an unsigned, one-sided attack on Michael Milken. The "correction" reads as though it was dictated by those seeking to torpedo Milken's chances of obtaining a pardon from President Clinton.

Smartertimes.com can understand the Times running a correction of its erroneous statement that prosecutors raised no objection to the prospect of a pardon for Milken. It's true, some prosecutors have objected. But today's "correction," and the Saturday article it seeks to correct, both curiously omit the fact that the chief Milken prosecutor is now mayor of the Times' own city, and has come out strongly in favor of the pardon, most explicitly to Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal.

The Times reported Mayor Giuliani's position in a brief item in its metro-section gossip column on December 26, 2000. That column does not appear in copies of the Times distributed outside the New York metropolitan region. [The New York Times subsequently notified Smartertimes.com that this particular item appeared in the "New York Digest" section of papers distributed outside the New York region.] When it comes to the serious news coverage of the Milken pardon issue in its national pages, the Times has found Giuliani's position on the matter unfit to print.

Admiral 'Borda': An op-ed piece in today's New York Times refers to the death of "Michael Borda, the former chief of naval operations." Admiral Boorda spelled his name with two "o"s; the Times has it wrong.

Note: Delivery of the e-mail edition of Smartertimes.com is lagging because of problems at the unit of the Microsoft Corporation that Smartertimes.com pays to deliver the e-mail.

The New York Times today publishes an op-ed piece by President Clinton. The article is about race relations in America and is timely because of Martin Luther King Day, which is tomorrow.

Mr. Clinton writes that there is "unfinished business" on the topic of race relations. "We can begin by ending the practice of racial profiling," he says. "We know racial profiling exists. We know it is wrong. And it should be illegal, everywhere. As we continue our efforts to document the extent of the problem, we should pass a federal law banning the practice of racial profiling."

This is just a bizarre call by Mr. Clinton. He is, after all, the president of America, and he has been for eight years. He is in charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FBI, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Customs Service. If he really believes racial profiling exists and that it is wrong, then that is not an indication of the need for a new "federal law," but an indictment of Mr. Clinton's own management skill. There are already constitutional protections in place for due process and equal protection. Those protections make the most egregious cases of racial profiling already illegal.

Emerson: A long article in today's New York Times about Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network quotes "Steven Emerson, a terrorism expert." The article quotes Mr. Emerson asserting that "the men who blew up the World Trade Center and Mr. bin Laden's group were linked." Funny how, when Mr. Emerson is useful to the point the Times is trying to make, the newspaper identifies him neutrally and respectfully as a "terrorism expert."

Back on October 26, 2000, in an article on ties between the Hillary Clinton campaign and American supporters of Islamic terrorist groups, the Times referred to "Steven Emerson, who identified himself as a freelance journalist preparing a magazine article on terrorism; he became well known when he initially strongly suggested that the Oklahoma City bombing was the work of Arab terrorists."

In other words, when Mr. Emerson worked with New York Daily News reporters to break a story that was unflattering to Mrs. Clinton, the New York Times follow-up story referred to him in a skeptical, even dismissive manner. But now that Mr. Emerson is helping the New York Times with its big front-page series on "Holy Warriors: A Network of Terror," Mr. Emerson's suggestion "that the Oklahoma City bombing was the work of Arab terrorists" seems to be a bit of information that the Times finds irrelevant.

Smartertimes.com isn't suggesting that the October 26 reference is more appropriate than today's, just noting the glaring inconsistency. As for Mr. Emerson's suggestion to the Times that Osama bin Laden had a hand in the World Trade Center bombing, Smartertimes.com finds Laurie Mylroie's suggestion that the government of Iraq played a role to be at least as credible.

The New York Times today goes after President-elect Bush's choice as interior secretary, Gale Norton, running an article in the national section under the headline, "Norton Record Often at Odds With Laws She Would Enforce."

The article reports that Ms Norton "has repeatedly challenged some of the laws that she would be obligated to enforce." As evidence of this, the Times reports that "As Colorado's attorney general until 1998, Ms. Norton declined to defend the state in a lawsuit challenging a minority preference rule for highway contracts, a rule that she said she could not support."

The Times reports that Ms. Norton "told the governor at the time, Roy Romer, that she would be unable to represent the state in a 1997 suit brought by Adarand Constructors of Colorado Springs, Colo. That suit challenged Colorado's support of a law setting aside some contracts for businesses headed by members of minority groups, a provision that Ms. Norton has opposed as unfair."

Well, talk about unfair. The New York Times makes it sound like Ms. Norton arbitrarily decided on her own that the law was unfair. But the law wasn't just unfair -- it was unconstitutional and illegal. Rather than running this story out under the headline "Norton Record Often at Odds With Laws She Would Enforce," the Times could have more fairly headlined the article or reported it in the context of "Norton Refused to Defend Unlawful Reverse Discrimination Scheme."

Adarand Constructors is a small, Colorado Springs-based guardrail and fence subcontractor owned by Randy and Valery Pech. As Adarand's lawyers at the Mountain States Legal Foundation put it, "In 1989, Adarand submitted a bid to install a fence line on five miles of highway in the San Juan National Forest in southwestern Colorado. Despite submitting the lowest bid, Adarand lost the contract because of a federal program that gave the prime contractor $10,000 to award the contract based on race."

Adarand's legal challenge went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which, in a landmark 1995 ruling, Adarand v. Pena, ruled that courts must apply a tough standard -- "strict scrutiny" -- to racial classifications of the kind that lost Adarand the contract. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Adarand again in January of 2000.

In the meantime, a federal district court judge, John Kane, had ruled that a Clinton administration effort to defend the Colorado law -- the law that Ms. Norton refused to defend -- was "fatuous" and "fallacious." Judge Kane noted that under the standards Adarand was challenging, "the Sultan of Brunei would qualify" as a "Disadvantaged Business Enterprise" for government preference purposes.

At least one journalist who demonstrates some signs of intelligence has been covering the whole Adarand-Norton matter: Al Knight of the Denver Post. Mr. Knight noted in a column that in opposing some of the state's affirmative action policies in 1995, Ms. Norton was "doing precisely what the law requires her to do, make sure that the state is behaving in a lawful manner with minimal exposure to discrimination lawsuits."

It's just flat-out false for the New York Times to report this Adarand matter as proof that Ms. Norton "has repeatedly challenged some of the laws that she would be obligated to enforce." She'd be under no obligation to enforce those racial set-aside laws as secretary of the interior -- they are illegal and unconstitutional, as federal courts have repeatedly ruled. She was right to have challenged them.

The front-page article in today's New York Times about the effect of a court ruling on school funding reports, "The Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, a Democrat, was traveling in Israel yesterday and could not be reached for comment."

The Times article might as well have said, "We couldn't be bothered to reach one of the key sources for this story and used the fact that he was out of the country as an excuse for not getting him on the phone. What's more, our three-person Jerusalem bureau didn't make it a priority to help us track him down."

Why is Smartertimes.com being so uncharacteristically harsh? Well, because it's clear from elsewhere in this morning's New York Times that, even though he was in Israel, Mr. Silver in fact could be reached for comment. In fact, page B9 of the metro section of today's Times features an obituary of Rabbi Yitzchok Singer. The obituary contains a quote about the rabbi with the attribution, "said Sheldon Silver, the speaker of the New York State Assembly, in a telephone interview from Tel Aviv yesterday."

Chao, McConnell, and Beck: The front-page New York Times story today on the selection of Elaine Chao to serve as secretary of labor in the Bush administration reports that Ms. Chao is the wife of Senator Mitch McConnell, "the conservative senator from Kentucky who has led the opposition to campaign finance reform. One Republican objection to the reform bills is that they do not block unions from contributing; Ms. Chao would now be the administration's chief official dealing with those unions."

This is an imprecise attempt to manufacture a conflict of interest. Senator McConnell would never have called for blocking unions from making political contributions; as the Senate's leading defender of the First Amendment, he understands, unlike the Times, that that would be contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. The Times describes this issue as a "Republican objection" to the "reform" bills, but it seems like a stretch to hold Ms. Chao or Senator McConnell responsible for every stupid thought ever uttered by a Republican. What some Republicans want to do is enforce the Supreme Court's Beck decision, which says that union members have the right to demand and receive a refund of the portion of their dues used for political activity. That's a far cry from blocking unions from contributing. It simply allows individual union members to opt out.

The Big City: The New York Times' "Big City" column is often a bright spot that challenges the big-government orthodoxy at the Times. But it is a sign of how powerful the group-think is at the newspaper that even that column today hews to the liberal orthodoxy when it comes to the court ruling on school funding. The column makes some motions of independence, challenging the notion that higher spending correlates with higher student achievement and the notion that judges should make these policy decisions. But the column seems to endorse wholeheartedly the idea of "redistributing wealth" and "redressing the financial inequities among school districts." This is the typical Marxist-New York Times opposition to "inequities," a preference to equality over freedom. Smartertimes.com doesn't see what's wrong with inequity. As long as every school district has the minimum funding necessary to provide students with an adequate education, why should districts that want to spend more be prevented from doing so in the name of "redistributing wealth"?

The lead news story in today's New York Times is about a decision by a state judge to order the state to spend about a billion dollars a year more on New York City's school system. The Times devotes a tremendous amount of space to the decision, printing a lead editorial on the topic, a "Metro Matters" column, a news analysis, a profile of the judge, a profile of the plaintiff, excerpts from the ruling, and two articles about reactions to the decision -- in addition to the front-page news article.

The general tone of the coverage is summarized by the Times editorial, which begins, "In a strong and welcome decision yesterday, State Supreme Court Justice Leland DeGrasse of Manhattan rightly blamed the state's inequitable allocation of education money for the 'parlous state' of New York City's schools. The state formulas, which have shortchanged the city for decades, deprive city students of the 'sound, basic education' guaranteed by New York State's Constitution, Justice DeGrasse ruled in a carefully argued decision. He also decreed that the state's deficient funding system violates the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 by causing an adverse and disparate impact on minority students, over 70 percent of whom live in New York City."

The "Metro Matters" column notes in seeming approval that the judge "rejects outright the idea that the city has enough money for education if it doesn't waste or misspend it."

The Times, and Judge DeGrasse, make much of the fact that New York City schools get less in state aid per student than some other upstate cities. And they make much of the fact that the New York City Board of Education spends less per student than some wealthy New York suburbs spend.

But for all the acres of newsprint the Times devotes to this story this morning, there just didn't seem to be room in the newspaper's coverage for some of the relevant facts. You'd search in vain in today's Times, for instance, for the fact that, according to the Citizens Budget Commission, "New York City spending per pupil is 17 percent above the national average." You'd search in vain to find out exactly how much money the New York schools do spend per student. The closest the Times comes is a sentence in the news analysis saying, "the city now pays about $4,500 per student, and the state kicks in about the same." The Times analysis immediately puts this in perspective: "In Westchester County, however, property owners pay more than $11,000 per student, while the state gives only about $2,000."

Fair enough. But what if, say, instead of comparing the New York City per-pupil expenditure only to that in wealthy suburban Westchester, the Times compared it to the expenditures in another large urban school district with many students who are poor or children of immigrants. Say, the school district in Houston, Texas.

To be sure, these comparisons are inexact. You have to watch out for accounting gimmickry involving capital expenditures. And there are differences in the costs of living in the two cities.

Nevertheless, according to the New York City Board of Education, New York City's schools spent $8,957 per pupil in 1998-1999. And, according to the Houston Independent School District, Houston's schools spent $5,672 per pupil in 1999-2000.

Yet while the state of the New York schools is, by the admission of the Times and the judge, "parlous," the Houston schools are widely heralded as a success, and their top executive, Roderick Paige, is about to be confirmed with bipartisan acclamation as the Bush administration's secretary of education. A New York Times article today about Mr. Paige's confirmation hearing reports, "Under his supervision, Houston schools have recruited quality teachers, reduced violence and improved reading scores."

How did Mr. Paige manage to achieve these gains? Was it by the New York Times-Judge DeGrasse method of blaming the previous failures on a racist lack of funding and by attempting to remedy the failure by pouring more money into a failing system? No. The news article in today's Times about Mr. Paige's confirmation hearing reports that the Houston achievements were made "in part by tying teacher salaries to gains in student performance."

How about that. Funny how the news from Houston doesn't seem to have penetrated the Times coverage of the court decision about the New York City schools.

An article in the national section of today's New York Times reports, "Reform Jewish leaders are recommending that parents withdraw their children from membership in the Boy Scouts of America and that synagogues end their sponsorship of Scout troops, the strongest action yet by a religious group to the Supreme Court decision allowing the Boy Scouts to exclude gay members."

The Times manages to report the entire story without quoting a single Jew, Reform or otherwise, who opposes the decision. It's an amazingly one-sided dispatch.

If the Times was looking for a Jew to make such an argument, it could have called the editor of Smartertimes.com. Here's what he might have said, "As an Eagle Scout whose troop was chartered to a Reform Jewish synagogue, I think it's a mistake for the Reform movement to encourage its synagogues and youth to break ties with the Boy Scouts of America. I realize that reasonable people can disagree with the scout policy on gays, but a more effective way of changing the policy would be to work within the scout system rather than cutting ties with scouting entirely. Would the Reform movement have its members renounce American citizenship or refuse to serve in the American military because of the ban on gays in the military? Would the Reform movement have its members all move to Vermont because the other 49 states do not recognize civil unions of gay couples? The scouts also discriminate against girls, who aren't allowed to become Boy Scouts, and against atheists, who are also excluded. Do Reform Jews think it's worse to discriminate against gays than against girls or atheists?"

White House Pets: A dispatch in the national section of today's New York Times about President Clinton's cat and dog reports that the animals are "famous." It goes on to say that "Despite the pets' notoriety, a senior administration official familiar with the interactions of the two animals said that they did not get along." This is a misuse of the word "notoriety." As the Times' own stylebook puts it, "notoriety means more than just fame. Use it only to mean unfavorable repute."

Garbled Kennedy Quote: The front-page story in today's New York Times about the withdrawal of Linda Chavez as President-elect Bush's nominee for labor secretary reports that Ms. Chavez "appeared more hostile to labor unions and workers' rights than the labor secretaries who served under Presidents Reagan, Ford and Nixon." The article then quotes Senator Kennedy as saying, "If there's a silver lining to the events of recent days, it's the opportunity not to name a labor secretary in the distinguished tradition of recent Republican presidents."

A person could read that section of the article several times and still not be sure of what Mr. Kennedy means. Is he being sarcastic when he talks about the "distinguished" tradition of recent Republican presidents? If he was not being sarcastic, did he really say "not to name" or did he mean "now to name"? Given Mr. Kennedy's Boston accent, the two could well be indistinguishable to the ear of an untrained listener.

An article in the international section of today's New York Times reports on developments at the resort town of Punta del Este, Uruguay. "Seeing a competitive threat, in recent days Pinamar and other Argentine beech resorts have announced that they, too, welcome topless bathing," the Times reports.

Later in the dispatch, the Times informs readers that "the wealthiest sold much of their property and moved to more secluded beeches further up the coast."

A "beech" is a kind of tree. The word the Times is looking for is "beach." Maybe there was some kind of mix-up between the article from Uruguay and the one that runs on the front page under the headline "Clinton Forest Chief Acts to Stop Logging of the Oldest Trees."

Oz: The lead, front-page news article in today's New York Times begins, "Pacing before a backdrop of glittering Manhattan skyscrapers that made New York City look like Oz, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani delivered a speech last night that was an attempt to both soften his sharp edges and set a political legacy for what will be the first year of the rest of his life. Mr. Giuliani, who spoke without notes for nearly two hours to lawmakers in the ornate City Council chamber, made his most extensive proposals in education, urging an extension of the school week to Saturday and Sunday for tens of thousands of students who need extra help in science and English."

It takes 79 words and a reference to Oz before readers get a piece of policy substance. Compare this treatment to the New York Post, which offered a more straightforward treatment. The Post began its article: "Mayor Giuliani yesterday suggested opening schools on weekends."

And what is with the reference to Oz, anyway? Is the Times likening the mayor to the wizard of Oz, a little man who creates an illusion of grandeur?

What is with the psycho-babble reference to "the first year of the rest of his life"? Every year is the first year of the rest of anyone's life. That's how time works. "Today is the first day of the rest of your life," goes the cliche.

The first two paragraphs of the Times article leave readers confused about this backdrop of skyscrapers, too. Was the mayor actually outside in front of skyscrapers? How could he have been both "before a backdrop of glittering Manhattan skyscrapers" and also "in the ornate City Council chamber"? Have they installed a large plate-glass window in the ornate City Council chamber to allow a view of the skyscrapers outside? These questions are answered finally by a photograph that runs inside the metro section, showing the mayor standing inside the council chamber before, literally, a theater-style backdrop depicting the New York skyline. But readers who didn't see the photograph could easily have been confused into thinking the Times was using a less literal definition of the word backdrop.

A "Public Lives" profile in the national section of today's New York Times focuses on the White House drug tsar, General Barry McCaffrey. The Times reports that the general said drug treatment and mental health care should be covered by health insurance. "General McCaffrey was instrumental in persuading President Clinton to extend such parity in health coverage to nine million federal employees," the Times reports.

Apparently, the author of and editors of today's profile don't read the corrections box in the Times. On January 3, 2001, that box said, "A front-page article on Monday about increased insurance coverage for mental health care referred incorrectly to the nine million people who will benefit from changes in the program for federal employees. Almost three million are current employees; the others are dependents and retirees."

Today's profile manages to repeat the original error, taking no notice of the correction.

Late Again: An article in the national section of today's New York Times reports on a new Fox television program called "Temptation Island." The article runs under the headline, "In Television's New Reality, Temptation Puts Vows to the Test." This story is old news to readers of the Wall Street Journal, which on January 3, 2001, published a similar article that ran under the headline, "This Reality Show Could Be Called: 'Who Wants to Be a Philanderer?' --- Fox Network's Latest TV Series Will Let Four Couples Test Fiber of Their Relationships."

One-Sided on Housing: A story on the front of the metro section of today's New York Times reports on Mayor Giuliani's plans to spend about 600 million more taxpayer dollars on subsidized housing over the next four years. A long Times article quoting a series of "housing advocates" manages to find not a single soul who raises the question of whether the city should even be in the business of subsidizing housing. Or whether the matter would be better left to the private sector. Or whether the money to be spent on the housing subsidies could instead be returned to citizens in the form of a tax cut. The Times hardly ever gives the mayor a free pass when he pushes conservative ideas like punishing criminals or making welfare recipients work. But when the mayor wants to spend more money on housing, the Times coverage is unrelentingly positive. The only criticism of the mayor in the article is that he hasn't spent more, sooner.

In an editorial today, the New York Times gets up on its high horse and lectures Europe about the need for "higher levels of legal immigration." The Times condemns European "xenophobia" and expresses disappointment that the European public "does not share Americans' more welcoming spirit." The Times editorial says, "Distressingly, too many politicians are willing to capitalize on anti-immigrant sentiments."

Well, before lecturing Europe on the need to welcome immigrants, the Times might have checked to see if its own house is in order on the immigration issue. It isn't. In fact, in an editorial published August 24, 2000, the Times dismissed an appeal from the Mexican government for the free movement of persons across the border. Such a policy "is not practical anytime soon," the Times fretted. It might result in low-wage Mexican workers competing "with the poorest, least skilled Americans," the Times warned. What we really need, the Times said in August, is "improved Mexican border enforcement."

What was that again about "Americans' more welcoming spirit"?

Very divisive figures: The lead New York Times editorial today describes Linda Chavez, President-elect Bush's choice to run the Department of Labor, as one of the "very divisive figures" Mr. Bush has chosen. Smartertimes.com has said this before but will repeat it again. Ms. Chavez is not a divisive figure. Her policies would tend to unite Americans. The dividers are the ones who would pit Americans against each other and categorize them by racial and language groups, rather than, as Ms. Chavez does, advocating government policies that treat Americans equally and encourage assimilation.

Opening Friday: The "Liberties" column on the op-ed page of today's New York Times reports that "opening Friday is '13 Days,' a Kevin Costner movie about the Cuban missile crisis." This is just another indicator of how the Times seems totally unfamiliar with life in its supposed hometown of New York. "13 Days" has been playing here for more than a week. The editor of Smartertimes.com saw it in a theater on Manhattan's Upper West Side on December 28, 2000. The movie may be "opening Friday" in some remote provinces like the District of Columbia, but you'd think the Times would at least make some acknowledgment of the fact that the movie already opened in Manhattan.