NY Times gets it

[PCM]

In today's New York Times, there's an editorial regarding the proposed memorial at Ground Zero and the controversy surrounding what should be included in it. I found this statement interesting as it relates to UND's use of the Sioux name and logo:

Mr. Pataki's job is to represent all those deeply interested parties. By attempting to appease one small, vocal group of protesters who are unlikely to be appeased anyway, he is abrogating the rights of everyone else. And he runs the risk of turning ground zero into a place where we bury the freedoms that define this nation.

This is another way of saying that the minority of a minority should not be allowed to dictate to the majority. But don't expect the Times to use its editorial power to stick up for those who believe their First Amendment rights are being trampled by those who claim the nonexistent right of self-portrayal.

Journalists supporting free speech. What a concept.

[ScottM]

Actually, as I recall the Times' recent (2004?) article on UND hockey, and REA, the writer noted the controversy, but seemed to take a pretty even-handed approach to it, and spoke to reps of both sides. However, the writers are generally less biased than the editorial board.