NYT is VERY careful in its reporting, generally speaking. They do not go out on limbs. I closely read the Times for hints of what they may think but are not confident to state and I have strenuously encouraged readers of this blog to do likewise. So with that as background:
“• The doors of the cathedral shut just before a last rush of tourists tried to get inside, witnesses said, and not long afterward smoke could be seen rising from the spire. Video showed that scaffolding around the base of the spire, part of extensive renovations that were underway, was one of the first places to visibly catch fire.”
Enraged tourist? Arson? The official preliminary word is accidental. If you think that short paragraph was worded by the reporters arbitrarily, insouciantly, you’re nuts. Those words were very carefully chosen and were reviewed by editors who specifically asked the reporters about them and then approved them for print.
“• The doors of the cathedral shut just before a last rush of tourists tried to get inside, witnesses said, and not long afterward smoke could be seen rising from the spire. Video showed that scaffolding around the base of the spire, part of extensive renovations that were underway, was one of the first places to visibly catch fire.”
Enraged tourist? Arson? The official preliminary word is accidental. If you think that short paragraph was worded by the reporters arbitrarily, insouciantly, you’re nuts. Those words were very carefully chosen and were reviewed by editors who specifically asked the reporters about them and then approved them for print.
