Unwonted vigor? A1 has an unusual configuration this morning. (And I'm not referring to Danny Hakim's gee-whiz robo-car story, which as an A1 item is just weird, not, I'm sorry to say, unusual.) The lead is given to a basically local story (though obviously with national resonance) that fingers financial self-aggrandizement on the part of the private Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation as the cause of delays in the post-9/11 reopening of the Statue (Mike McIntire, "Extra Fund-Raising Put Off Statue of Liberty Reopening"). The article, a sharp critique, thoughtfully places the Statue endowment, which seems to be regarded by its officers as their own permanent employment program, within the larger context of privatization in the maintenance of national parks and other public spaces, noting that "the practice blossomed during the Reagan administration, which urged greater use of public-private partnerships throughout the government."

Add to the unusualness Steven Greenhouse's labor piece, which appears on two columns beneath the Statue of Liberty story ("Altering of Worker Time Cards Spurs Growing Number of Suits"). Greenhouse, who's been terrific in the past on abuse of workers at Wal-Mart, expands his corporate focus today to include retailers like Toys "R" Us, Family Dollar, and Pep Boys, but he's still focusing on the consequences of the Wal-Mart economy as he puts together recent lawsuits to discern a real, meaningful trend: retailers who steal wages from their already immiserated employees by forcing store managers to shave worker hours ("Altering of Worker Time Cards Spurs Growing Number of Suits"). More great work from Greenhouse, who even nails down the class issues:

Compensation experts say that many managers, whether at discount stores or fast-food restaurants, fear losing their jobs if they fail to keep costs down.

"A lot of this is that district managers might fire you as soon as look at you," said William Rutzick, a lawyer who reached a $1.5 million settlement with Taco Bell last year after a jury found the chain's managers guilty of erasing time and requiring off-the-clock work. "The store managers have a toehold in the lower middle class. They're being paid $20,000, $30,000. They're in management. They get medical. They have no job security at all, and they want to keep their toehold in the lower middle class, and they'll often do whatever is necessary to do it."

Sadly, the reportorial vigor on display in A1's off-beat stories isn't matched in the long piece by David Johnston and Eric Schmitt that gets above-the-fold honors ("Uneven Response Seen on Terror in Summer of 2001"). [Everybody seems to get in on the reporting job on this one: David Sanger, Richard Stevenson and Steven Weisman are all credited with contributions.] You glance at it and think, hey, the Times has finally decided to join the party—I did, but shouldn't have got my hopes up; that big accompanying Cowboy Dubya photo from Aug. 6, 2001 (the day of the fateful Al Qaeda hijack briefing) ought to have given pause. So should the byline. Much like Johnston's similary lengthy review of the history of the bin Laden hunt a week and a half ago, written with Todd Purdum ("Missed Chances in a Long Hunt for bin Laden"), this is dull, by-the-numbers, unnamed-Administration-source-happy writing with nothing in the way of a discernible viewpoint. Wherever the authors can repeat an Administration justification for its inaction through Sept. 2001, they do; at no point in the article do they attempt to directly critique any statement from Rice or anybody else on Team Bush, or point out where their reporting contradicts (as implicitly it often does) the official White House line. Josh Marshall calls this "an important article," but to my eye this is strictly CYA on the Times' part in advance of Rice's public testimony. Johnston seems to be their go-to guy for this sort of thing.

posted by michael  4:55:08 PM  
tell me about it []