In a brief piece reporting Trent Lott's planned resignation from the Senate, Adam Nossiter and David M. Herszenhorn saw fit to include this paragraph:
By resigning before the end of the year, Mr. Lott would beat the effective date for new ethics rules that double to two years the amount of time former Senators must wait before they can join a firm to lobby former colleagues. The new rule applies to those who leave office "on or after" Dec. 31.
I'm sure rightwingers who read the NYT just to complain about it will have plenty to say about this, but I think it merited inclusion.
I had a little more trouble with the lede:
Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, who was forced to step down as majority leader in 2002 after making a remark that seemed to support segregation, announced today that he will resign by the end of the year.
This is something important in Lott's career, and deserved mention, but I wouldn't have put it in the first sentence. I would have started with something like "Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, former Majority Leader and current second-ranking Republican, announced …" and reviewed later in the article why he lost the Majority Leader slot.
In defense of Nossiter and Herszenhorn, there was no speculation about the expected massive slump in sales of men's hair spray in the D.C. area.
(photo credit: Alex Brandon/Associated Press, my crop)
No comments:
Post a Comment