The New York Times - sic transit historia

***
The esteemed publisher of “all the news that’s fit to print” seems to have lost its way. Has printing erroneous information and flights of fancy that bear no resemblance to the truth now become de rigueur?

On August 13, 2010 the Times printed an op-ed column by Gail Collins that celebrated women’s suffrage, which she said would be observing its 90th anniversary. “It has everything. Adventure! Suspense! Treachery! Drunken legislators!” she wrote. It made for wonderful reading, bringing tears to the eyes of many who posted comments on the NYT web site.

Well, why shouldn’t it? After all, it is worthy to note that American women finally got the right to vote -- before most developed countries had granted such rights to their women. All emotional responses aside, the article raised my suspicions as the events surrounding the article seemed to be out of place or at least out of time.

“Ninety years ago this month [August, 1920], all eyes turned to Tennessee, the only state yet to ratify with its Legislature still in session. The resolution sailed through the Tennessee Senate.” Ms. Collins said, “The most vigorous opposition came from the liquor industry, which was pretty sure that if women got the vote, they’d use it to pass Prohibition.”

There are two problems with this statement. First is that Prohibition had already passed in January of 1919 (taking effect one year later) so if there was concern that the ladies would vote for it, it was misplaced and curious at best. Second, there had not been, nor would there be, a popular vote for Prohibition, or even for women’s suffrage for that matter. Constitutional Amendments are voted on by the parliamentary bodies of the US Congress, and each individual State.

“Both suffrage and anti-suffrage men were reeling through the hall in an advanced state of intoxication…” Ms. Collins continued. Although this is quite possible, remember that the National Prohibition Act that went into effect in January of 1920 restricted or prohibited the manufacture, transportation, import, export, and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages. Thus seven months later there wouldn’t have been any legal manufacturers of alcohol, and anyone transporting booze to the Tennessee legislature would have been breaking the law. There is no historical record for this statement (at least not in the extensive NYT reportage of the event) and it couldn’t have been for the reason given, as Prohibition was already a fait accompli.

What is most bothersome about this affair is that of the 135 or so comments I read on the Times web site, no one save I, even noticed or seemed to care about the discrepancy noted above. I was alarmed that so many commenters actually mentioned that suffrage was indeed responsible for the enactment of Prohibition. They swallowed whole an erroneous piece of purported history. This, I believe, is food for the urban myth monster, which continually rampages across the Internet, bombarding us with false information.

I wrote a note to the Times corrections department pointing out all of the above but received no reply. I then wrote to the public editor, which was returned with… silence. It seems that accuracy in publishing is of little consequence to an organization that in recent years has been riddled with scandal due to reporters’ conflicts of interest and fabricated stories. Frankly, I expected better.

Raff Ellis
www.raffellis.com