This is the most bizarre NYT article I have ever read, not so much in content (which is rather unsettling) as in its very existence. And vast length. And the motivations behind so much verbiage, which knows it can't possibly grow large enough to cover all the damage, but it can't help but try. Man...
I thought they felt if they talked enough about it, it would make it all better, something like that. In today's Times they talk a bit more about the fallout from it (much shorter article, one page only).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
prog![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-05-13 05:37 am (UTC)