The New York Times' Katharine Seelye begins her report (8/24/11) on yesterday's Virginia-centered earthquake with a dangerous inaccuracy:

Of all the things there are to worry about, earthquakes are fairly low on the list for those on the East Coast.

Actually, people on the East Coast should probably worry about earthquakes a lot more than they do. A study done of potential quake hazards faced by various cities placed Boston at slightly more risk than San Francisco (Wired Science, 8/23/11)--because the latter city, while more seismically active, is also better prepared.

In New York City, where Seelye's main audience resides, "a pattern of subtle but active faults makes the risk of earthquakes to the New York City area substantially greater than formerly believed," as Columbia University's Earth Institute (8/21/08) summarized a paper in the Bulletin of  the Seismological Society of America.  A magnitude 6 quake, just slightly bigger than the one that hit Virginia, occurring near New York City is projected to kill more than a thousand people and do $40 billion in damage.

Seelye, assigned to cover the quake for New York City's most powerful news outlet, could have used the opportunity to point out how the city could be better prepared for seismic disaster. Instead, she chose to write a jokey piece that gave no indication that earthquakes could pose a real threat to her readers.

Current Anti-Advertising Agency CEO Steve Lambert and founder Jordan Selier have posted (AntiAdvertisingAgency.com, 5/12/09) their letter to the New York Times responding to a May 11 piece that cites one NYC advertising executive asking, "All you have to do is walk out the door for lunch and notice the number of vacant storefronts... so why not get in there and put a message in there?":

I know why not, because it's a crime! And I was disappointed that the Times didn't mention this. Outdoor advertising is regulated by the Department of Buildings for several reasons; so billboards aren't erected in dangerous places and ways, to regulate advertising to specific districts keeping the city livable, and to prevent persuasive messages from being placed anywhere and everywhere a corporation can buy space.

The Department of Buildings has strict regulations on size and these storefronts turned billboards are simply too large for nearly every commercial district in New York with the exception of Times Square.

Deeming the Times "mistaken in reporting on this as a 'thriving' type of advertising emerging from declining economy," Lambert and Selier would rather the paper "call it what it is, advertisers desperate for profits, committing organized crime and hurting the livability of our city"--and even urge "New Yorkers who care" to "have them removed! Or just tear them down themselves."