NYT Front|Back: Welfare of One Socialite vs. Welfare of Our Troops

FRONT:

As Mrs. Astor Slips, the Grandson Blames the Son
Phillip Marshall, grandson of celebrated New York City socialite and philanthropist Brooke Aster, has accused his father of mistreating the 104-year-old Mrs. Astor. Allegations include "failing to fill Mrs. Astor’s prescriptions, stripping her apartment of artwork, confining the dogs she doted on to the pantry, reducing the number of staff members looking after her, and forcing her to sleep in chilly misery on a couch that smells of urine." Are these allegations true? Or is this a power play by the grandson? (I'm on the edge of my seat.) Whatever the case, with the world in tumult, how is this front-page news?   

Intro:

Once, she and her pearls and her designer dresses were everywhere that was anywhere in New York society: this benefit, that party, this lunch, that dedication. At her 90th birthday party, she danced the first dance with the mayor. At her 100th, 100 well-connected friends toasted her with Champagne.

...

Now Mrs. Astor, 104, is at the center of a bitter intergenerational dispute that has become public. In a lawsuit, one of her grandsons has accused her son of mistreating her and turning her final years into a grim shadow of the glittery decades that went before.

BACK (page A22):

Americans Showing Isolationist Streak, Poll Finds
This article examines results from the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. One of the most salient findings related to the war in Iraq? The majority of Americans, 56%, want a timetable for a troop withdrawal. Though leave it to The Times to downplay results from its own poll. In the text of the article, the wording is "they supported a timetable for a reduction in United States forces..." But the wording of the question in the actual poll (you can view it by clicking to the left of the article) is, "Do you think the U.S. should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq?" A sterling job by Times reporter Jim Rutenberg and his editors. It's not like there's a substantial difference between a "reduction" and a "withdrawal." It's not like that one-word change dramatically undercuts the impact of the response. Brilliant.

All right, can the mainstream media finally admit that the majority of our citizens want our troops home now? They could start by not editing out protesters from its coverage who underscore this message?

Another telling Iraq-related finding? "More than twice as many respondents - 63 percent versus 30 percent - said the Iraq war had not been worth the American lives and dollars lost." Yet this eye-popping figure was buried (just like this story) in the second-to-last paragraph, twenty paragraphs into the article. One more sound editorial choice.

Finally, returning to this story's curiously slanted headline, it's interesting to note that, according to The Times, if Americans disagree with this administration's disastrous foreign policy moves and do not wish to become involved in another war (in Lebanon), then that somehow points to an "isolationist streak." But what this editorial decision does point to is that The Times editors seem to have a decided predilection for war-mongering.

Not surprising from the people who brought us Judy Miller and her incredibly lethal WMD lies.   

Excerpt:

Over all, the poll found a strong isolationist streak in a nation clearly rattled by more than four years of war, underscoring the challenge for Mr. Bush as he tries to maintain public support for his effort to stabilize Iraq and spread democracy through the Middle East.