Reporter Jim Dwyer actually does a decent job  of exposing the heavyhandedness of the police response to trade protests in 2002. Many facts in the article expose how NYC police used pre-emptive arrest, infiltration, psy-ops and possibly misinformation campaigns to intimidate protesters and (as in that  Spielberg movie with Tom Cruise) arrest people -- based on an assumption of future wrongdoing. But these are couched between benign-sounding words such as "effective," "proactive."

The whole article (click HERE) is well worth reading; here are some excerpts:

The reports also made clear what the police have yet to discuss publicly: that the department uses undercover officers to infiltrate political gatherings and monitor behavior.

Under the heading of recommendations, the draft suggested, "Utilize undercover officers to distribute misinformation within the crowds."

A police inspector praised the "staging of massive amounts" of armored vehicles, prisoner wagons and jail buses in the view of the demonstrators, writing that the sight "would cause them to be alarmed."

It was useful to have buses with corrections officers on hand," Captain Hardiman wrote. "They also had a powerful psychological effect."

The reports, which were heavily edited at the request of the city, also discuss the use of undercover officers at the protests. Captain Hardiman wrote that "the use of undercovers from narcotics provided useful information." And on Inspector Shortell's list of positive aspects of the strategy, he listed "the use of undercover personnel in the ranks of the protesters."

So the question is: Who applied the "calming" spin on this otherwise alarming article?

The headline is unlikely to have been the choice of the reporter, in a large media organization like the Times. And for  what reason, except to diminish public outrage?  Perhaps someone at the NYT feels that protecting  the police is more important than accuracy in  media.

No doubt the verbs "intimidate" and "suppress" were deemed too inflammatory for the Times. But they could have chosen a more neutral word, such as "minimize." Instead they chose "calm," and the question is not are just Why? but also, how can anyone seriously call the media liberal, when even  the paper most despised by right-wingers acts to  protect these kinds of illegal tactics?