Backstory: The best of Times, the worst of Times

By Michael Green

The New York Times is the nation's finest newspaper. Anyone who wants to be informed about the world must read it.

Yet the Times has had bad times. Last year, its two top editors walked the plank over "reporter" Jayson Blair making up events and quotations. The new editors recently admitted to poor reporting on the Bush administration's claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Sadly, they haven't fired the reporters most responsible--or those who failed so miserably in covering The Rug's campaign in 2000 and his other lying. Since many in the media take their cues from the Times, its reporting and analysis are all the more crucial.

Thus the importance of its six-part series on Las Vegas last week. Each day brought a lengthy profile of an individual meant to exemplify the town's dreams and realities. A sidebar gave additional information. So, a look at a new teacher accompanied an analysis of the school system.

Around midweek, the wheels started coming off. The profile of Family Court Judge Gerald Hardcastle focused on his problems with his teenage daughter. She has drug issues and body piercings, and the judge doesn't much like Las Vegas. For a Family Court judge to sound bedraggled should be unsurprising. But the tone--his or the reporter's--somehow seemed to suggest that all would be well if not for Las Vegas, as though family problems exist only when I-15 meets U.S. 95.

Then the Times discussed women. The sidebar noted how the uninformed asked Jan Jones about the transition from dancing to the mayor's office (she has been sometimes rude and lewd, but not nude), and even that UNLV has a woman president. But the profile was of a nude dancer at the Palomino Club, in "a desolate part of North Las Vegas," which might be a surprise to Jerry's Nugget, the successful casino across the street.

The next day brought an immigrant woman enjoying success thanks to the Culinary Union and her hard work--an inspiring story, but one that many could tell in their sleep. Finally, Billy Vassiliadis received deserved attention for his marketing of Las Vegas, along with allusions to an incestuous and interconnected power structure, but without the perspective that he is one in a long line of powerful political consultants and ad executives in these parts, and that the Las Vegas News Bureau also promoted the town in ways keeping with social mores and morays.

Some Las Vegans criticized the series even before the Times found troubled families and nude dancers. Others are writing letters and complaining to the paper. Critics of the series miss the point.

This kind of coverage is beneficial. Not because it's entirely correct--the articles included historical errors that could have been easily checked. But knowledgeable outsiders writing about Las Vegas often tell us what we cannot or will not notice.

Granted, many criticize the local dailies for their news coverage, and rightly so. But when you are here every day, broader trends often go unnoticed. For the Times to note our societal failures--high suicide and teen pregnancy rates, school overcrowding, machine politics--may be galling, but the truth often is. Las Vegas can be a great place to live, but that isn't true for everybody, whatever certain members of the Legislature may think.

That said, too much of the series was trite. Russell Baker, who wrote the most consistently brilliant column that ever adorned the Times, once defined news as "man bites dog." When a dog bites a man, it's a typical event. Much of what the Times published about Las Vegas was about a dog biting a man.

It wouldn't have been hard for the Times to focus on strippers seeking an education or raising a family. Or the sexism faced by UNLV President Carol Harter--and her own successes and failures--could have been the basis for examining local women's issues.

Graciela Diaz, the Culinary member who found the American dream of home ownership and success, is admirable. But the saga of Las Vegas' moderately or poorly educated middle class, and its unions, is more complex. Had the Times profiled a blackjack dealer at a small locals joint, the story might have been different--and more critical of Las Vegas. It might have been telling--and equally critical--to compare a top casino executive with leaders of other corporations and what they do for their communities.

Such stories might have been less sexy, but that's the point: The New York Times should do better.

Last year, the Los Angeles Times published possibly the silliest Nevada hit piece ever. Since Sen. Harry Reid's sons represent gaming and mining interests, it reasoned, he supports gaming and mining. Anyone with a brain knew this was ridiculous--as though a Nevada politician would oppose them. Times editors defended themselves on the grounds that their facts were right. They weren't, actually, but the real issue was that the tone diverged from the reality. Now another major national newspaper's tone was off-key--and when the tone is off, the rest is called into question.

The New York Times once advertised itself by saying, "Without it, you're not with it." One of its editors responded that the Times should be a bit above it. To be with it or above it, the Times needs to get with it, but it isn't alone. As its reporting shows, so does Las Vegas.