Do editors actually do anything?

Sometimes news stories just drive me nuts. One such story was published today by the NY Times. All I have to do is show you two quotes to illustrate the point.

Sporadic clashes were reported in Basra, the largest city in southern Iraq, where British forces killed two militiamen. But Baghdad, even in the Shiite slum neighborhood of Sadr City, appeared to be mostly quiet until 11:15 p.m., when three large explosions, probably from mortars, rocked the city's center. Small-arms fire followed.

So al-Sadr failed to incite an uprising in Sadr city.

Then the story ends with this:

While more confined than the widespread fighting in April and May, Thursday's attacks again showed Mr. Sadr's reach. The clashes began at the central police station in Najaf early this morning and spread to Baghdad after Mr. Sadr called on his followers to revolt. At least a dozen more soldiers and dozens of insurgents were wounded in both Baghdad and Najaf, though exact casualty counts were unavailable late Thursday. Mr. Sadr's call was the most serious challenge yet to the interim Iraqi government, whose head, Ayad Allawi, has struggled to assert his authority since being named prime minister in June. Unlike moderate Shiite political leaders like Mr. Allawi, Mr. Sadr fiercely opposes the continuing American presence here and has tried twice since October to revolt against it.

In the middle of the story, Sadr city was "mostly quiet", yet by the end of the story the attacks "showed again [Sadr's] reach"?

Does it really take a degree in journalism to see the inconsistency here? For crying out loud. Do a little research. All of the evidence points to al-Sadr having very little influence outside his band of thugs and criminals. None of the Iraqi Shiite leaders support him. Even the people in Najaf, where al-Sadr lives despise him! His so called revolution died out after one day of fighting. Even he realizes he's going nowhere.

Near midnight on Thursday, Mr. Sadr offered a tentative cease-fire, saying that his guerrillas — known as the Mahdi Army — would stop fighting if American soldiers did the same, according to a spokesman for the group. The offer would renew a two-month-old truce between Mr. Sadr and the American military, which had appeared on the verge of crumbling earlier today.

Is this really that hard to put together?

al-Sadr calls for revolution after American troops approach his house (perhaps in an effort to arrest him?) After one day of fighting, 360 of his men are dead and he's ready for another truce. Nothing out of the ordinary happened in Baghdad, Basra or al-Sadr city, and fighting in Nasiriyah was sporadic and brief. Yet this shows his "reach"?

Even the Times should be able to do better than this.