Raines of Error – The New York Times has come under withering criticism from the blogosphere of late, usually for some variation on abandoning its old gray lady image of objectivity in favor of arguing itself blue (as in the Gore counties on the famous 2000 electoral map) in the face on (and in) issue after issue. Recent examples of the criticism can be found on InstaPundit (“Why, exactly, does the New York Times feel obliged to distort its reporting….”), Kausfiles (“Stop Me Before I Bash the NYT Again”), and Andrew Sullivan (most days).
Now there’s another problem. Perhaps this new turn toward advocacy journalism in the news pages has gotten the editors all discombobulated, but, whatever the reason, they seem to have lost their ability to produce agreement … between subjects and verbs.
In an editorial today in which most people will notice only the criticism of Hillary Clinton (for favoring “loopholes” in the new campaign finance reform law), the following sentence appear (no sic; I’m using the NYT‘s new grammar):
At issue are a set of regulations that delineate the law’s ban on raising, directing or receiving unlimited funds from corporations, unions and rich donors for state parties.
At issue are a set of regulations? At issue also, it would appear, are whether the editors’ grammar book have gone missing.
