XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1999 12:00:00 ET XXXXX

NEWSROOM FIGHT AT NY TIMES: 'HOW DO WE REPORT A 99-YEAR CENTURY'?

It was years, then it was months, now it is days. And soon, it will be hours.

How to deal with the arrival of year 2000? End of Decade? End of Century? End of Millennium?

Or, if you work at the NEW YORK TIMES, End of Journalism?

The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that a deep and emotional split has developed inside of the NEW YORK TIMES over how to cover the arrival of year 2000!

While some inside of the paper argue that there must be full-coverage of year 2000 and society's insistence that a new millennium has been reached, others demand -- including one top editor -- continuity and factual reporting.

"We can not declare that 2000 is the arrival of the millennium," demanded a senior executive at the TIMES. "In fact, we are on the record stating it is not!"

The senior executive makes the point that the lead headline of the NEW YORK TIMES on January 1, 1901 read: "Twentieth Century's Triumphant Entry".

"We can hardly have a 99-year century, now can we?" said the executive. "We must not let logic take second place to popular feeling!"

The executive saw red after NYT op-ed star Gail Collins wrote in her column last week that "January starts us on a new 1,000-year cycle".

Collins is not expected to know that there was no year zero in the AD [Anno Domini, "in the year of our Lord"] calendar created by monk Dionysius Exiguus [Dennis the Short], and the millennium started out with the year 1 AD.

'00 bulls inside of the paper dismiss such talk.

"We will all look like idiots if we do not report on the excitement around 2000," said one senior Washington reporter. "And who really cares what was reported in 1901."

It is not clear how the paper plans to resolve the journalistic dilemma.

NY TIMES reporters are increasingly playing up the arrival of the 2000 Millennium in their copy; the word "millennium" has appeared 731 times in the TIMES -- in the past 6 months.

Gray Lady declares the world's first 99-year century?

[And they bitch about the "accuracy" of Internet reporting.]

----------------------------------------------------------- Filed by Matt Drudge Reports are moved when circumstances warrant (c)DRUDGE REPORT 1999 Not for reproduction without permission of the author

http://www.drudgereport.com/matt.htm

-- Hokie (nn@va.com), November 28, 1999

Answers

Well, that's a weird one. Even pedants have to agree that the mystique surrounds Jan. !, 2000: it is phenomenological, alive, not some dry bit of calender trivia. They must confess the millenium is upon us.

-- Spidey (free@last.Amen), November 28, 1999.

It must be nice for the NYT "management" to have such such weighty things to worry about. What are these guys going to do for jobs next year?

-- The Whistler (I'm Here, I'm There, I'm Everywhere,@so.beware), November 28, 1999.

More intellectual denial.

-- world about to return (to@nitty.gritty), November 28, 1999.

It's not a new controversy. A friend sent us a copy of a title page from an early French book where they were arguing over what was the proper beginning of the next century: "Dissertation sur le commencement du siecle prochain et la solution du probleme, sacvoir laquelle des deux annees 1700 ou 1701 est la premiere du siecle" [Run through the Alta Vista translator it reads roughly:Essay on the beginning of the next century and the solution of the problem, to learn which the two years 1700 or 1701 is the premiere century. ] Paris, de l'Imprimerie de JEAN MOREAU, rue Galande, pres le coin de la rue S. Julien le Pauvre, 1699

-- Firemouse (firemouse@fcmail.com), November 28, 1999.

If they want ME to wait a year, I've got no problem with it.

Now, if the NYT will only convince the COMPUTERS to wait a year...

-- The Whistler (I'm Here, I'm There, I'm Everywhere@so.beware), November 28, 1999.

In the meantime, how about some NEWS?? GMAB!!!!!

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), November 28, 1999.

No problem! Since only what counts is popular opinion (educated or not), advertising revenue, etc., regardless of a "just-in-the-way" silly old definition, let's have two "millennium" observances -- 2000-01-01 and 2001-01-01. :-)

-- A (A@AisA.com), November 28, 1999.