Kudos to the Times for reporting the story, but what’s up with this, in the second paragraph?: “The deal was similar to agreements in other major projects, like Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn and Columbia University’s expansion into Harlem.”

Similar how, exactly? Aha: Carrión and the Yankees called the deal a Community Benefits Agreement…and so did the groups negotiating in Brooklyn and Harlem. Ergo, the Times calls the Yankee Stadium agreement a CBA, too. Further down in the story, reporter Timothy Williams clarifies: “The agreement for Yankee Stadium was unusual, however, because it was not negotiated or signed by community members.”

Unusual. Note to copy desk: “Bogus” might be a better word. By its own admission, by calling the Yankee Stadium deal a CBA the Times is using a term, supplied by the subject of its story, that blatantly misrepresents the origins and purpose of the enterprise.

Can you say WMD? It’s mind-blowing that in 2008, the Times is still allowing itself, and the public, to be manipulated by fraudulent misuse of language by the powerful. The Yankee Stadium deal is simply not a community benefits agreement, no matter what Carrión says.

A Norwood News editorial reflects on a survey from Councilmember Oliver Koppell finding ample evidence of school overcrowding in District 10, contrary to the Department of Education’s conclusion that no new schools are needed at the armory site.

Also on the schools front, City Limits told the inside story of how schools disappeared from armory plans.

And where has the New York Times been on this important story? The armory redevelopment, transforming a site about half the size of Columbia University’s Manhattanville beachhead, got 280 measly words in the City Section (a sequel to a brief story last year).