Merger and Settlement
It's refreshing to be reminded every so often that there is still at least
one thing that can put the brakes on our warp-drive news cycle--the three-day
weekend. So what's news today is whatever could get done with reporters and
editors off barbecuing in droves. The Washington Post goes clear across its top with the news that the
attorney general of Mississippi, Michael Moore, who pioneered the idea of suing
the tobacco companies to recoup state health expenditures, has reached a $170
million settlement with them, one that goes into effect even if the proposed
big national tobacco deal falls through. The Post reports that
"Mississippi Gov. Kirk Fordice denounced the agreement as 'a dangerous
precedent' that is 'about big bucks and big publicity.'"
The New York Times puts
the Mississippi tobacco story above the fold but leads instead with the
announcement that Lockheed intends to buy a rival defense contractor,
Northrup/Grumman. (The Post plays that story lower, but above its fold.)
The Times describes the acquisition as part of a consolidation trend in
the defense industry and says that the trend is encouraged by the Clinton
administration, but never says why. The Los Angeles Times
also leads with the story, and as might be expected, bemoans the likely closure
of the L.A.-based Northrop/Grumman corporate headquarters, and possible local
layoffs. The Post reviews the virtues of the various airplanes produced
by Northrop, but can't seem to recall any actual accomplishment of the
company's F-14 fighter, so instead merely describes it as "of 'TopGun' fame."
The AP story about the deal in USA TODAY makes it clear that consolidation is good for
business in all kinds of ways, explaining that if it falls through, Lockheed
nonetheless collects a $200 million breakup fee.
All these stories note that Northrop's stock price went up nearly 25 percent
on the news, but none delves into the question of whether any of the major
players in or out of government who affect defense procurement are Northrop
stockholders.
Yesterday's surge in the Dow Jones, fueled by a slight rise in the latest
unemployment figures, is dutifully reported by the majors. According to the
NYT , the financial markets "reveled" and the White House's chief
economic advisor, Janet Yellen "exulted" in the news--that the ranks of the
unemployed grew by 302,000. This is typical of the big papers: they usually
report these jobs numbers as if it were perfectly obvious that the chief cause
of inflation is full(er) employment. Is it?
The Post places its story about President Clinton's first formal
legal response to the substance of Paula Jones's lawsuit against him--he
"adamantly" denies the charges--on the bottom of its front page. The NYT
doesn't even put it on the front. Think how this story would have been played
just ten years ago! Does the current relaxed treatment say something about Bill
Clinton, or about us?
Today's NYT lead editorial isn't your usual Fourth of July
clich,-fest--it calls for not erecting a World War II memorial on the
Mall in Washington, D.C.
