Friday, April 24, 2009
Only in the New York Times...
The New York Times is featuring on its front page a story about states that are shortening the hours of offices and agencies and furloughing their employees in order to save money. So, you can imagine the lede:
Licenses for same-sex marriages were supposed be issued in Iowa starting this Friday. But because of a crimped state budget, court employees will be on mandatory furlough that day and the courts will be closed. Gay couples cannot start filing for their licenses until Monday.
Seriously? Gay people waiting a weekend to get a marriage license is the big inconvenience caused by state furloughs? There are no issues for, say, businesses that are desperately trying to get permission from some bureaucrat to do something constructive?
Either the remaining and shrinking audience for the Times is even more idiosyncratic than even I imagined, or its editors are extraordinarily peculiar people. It is hard to see what the third explanation would be.
7 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri Apr 24, 10:16:00 AM:
By 
John, at
Fri Apr 24, 10:20:00 AM:
I can see how possibly the NYT sees this as important since it's a landmark case for the state and it was just set to go into effect...however, as I recall from my parents' several marriages, it can take one day or sometimes several to get your actual license...
Regardless, I'm confused about your 'permission from a bureaucrat to do something constructive,' mostly because I can't really associate constructive with bureaucrat, and getting that permission, well, good luck even when they're working overtime (ha!).
By SR, at
Fri Apr 24, 01:09:00 PM:
We are trying to hire a new physician for out medical group. The State of CA has told her that getting her license will take four or five months due to backlog.
We can't wait that long, and so I guess we will try to find someone who already has a CA license. Our loss.
By , at
Fri Apr 24, 01:55:00 PM:
I think Wretchard nailed it when he opined that the NYT has lived too long for itself. It is reflected in how they report and what they feel is important.
By , at
Fri Apr 24, 04:36:00 PM:
The Times is going heavy on satire, realizing "all the news that's fit to print" won't pay the bills.
By Andrewdb, at
Fri Apr 24, 05:59:00 PM:
This comment has been removed by the author.
By Andrewdb, at
Fri Apr 24, 06:00:00 PM:
Wasn't there a joke some time ago about nuclear war and the NYT coverage (and NPR too) - women and children hurt most.
The WSJ of course would cover its impact on commodity future prices.
