Wednesday, May 02, 2007

The Nagourney Number

The Nagourney number of this article in the NYT - that is, how many paragraphs one must read before reaching the anti-Republican truth - is finite: 15. Only after reading 15 paragraphs does Nagourney note why the R candidates for president are cautious about being associated with Bush - his 32% approval rating. He doesn't manage to refer to Bush as "unpopular" directly - only indirectly via a qualified quote. Perhaps by the time one of the fine Democrats in the race has won he'll get to that point. For now it's like reading one of those long Latin periods with the weight of thought at the end - but Cicero or whoever meant the end of the sentence to be heard and felt.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Why I was yelling last night

The NYT's recent hit piece on Gore, that's why. For starters, the stuff on sea-level rise could only have been written by a hack. Tim Lambert, the folks at RealClimate, and whoever this is find deep flaws in the article at will.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, February 12, 2007

More on the Hillary bashing

It's not surprising that Greg Sargeant can find a hack at the NYT.

And it's not surprising to see faux-liberal Richard Cohen embarassing himself.

And it's not entirely surprising to find stuttering anti-HRC litmus-test politics on the front page of Daily Kos (why bother to link), though I believe the blog's mission statement is against that.

And, well, few liberal bloggers like HRC and it shows a bit too obviously. Ok, people like their favorite candidate and that often means being unfair to the others.

But it's especially sad to see one of the smartest bloggers out there, Matthew Yglesias, looking monomaniacal and unreality-based. A lot. Really really a lot [ack, can't even find the best example because of MY's annoying archive setup].

UPDATE: apparently MY's comment links don't work. Grep on my handle in those threads to see my argument.


Late update: black is white from Big Tent Democrat - grep on "strategic sense".

Labels: ,

Friday, September 30, 2005

NYT on Judith Miller's unfortunate dog

Grabbed from the front page of the NYT's electronic edition:
Times Reporter Testifies in Leak Case After 85 Days in Jail
By DAVID JOHNSTON and DOUGLAS JEHL 2:15 PM ET
After testifying, Judith Miller headed home where, she said, she was eager to have a home-cooked meal and hug her dog.

Current lead paragraph:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 - Judith Miller, the reporter for The New York Times who had been jailed since July 6 for refusing to testify in the C.I.A. leak case, testified for more than three hours today before a federal grand jury investigating the case. Then she headed home to Long Island where, she said, she was eager to have a home-cooked meal and hug her dog.

Labels:

Friday, April 15, 2005

Speaking of unintentional sin

Thursday, April 14, 2005

What "hackery" means

Want to know what "hackery" means? You could look up the etymology of "hack", complicatedly derived from Hackney.

Or you could read this article on Sy Hersh by Chris Suellentrop, which I came across via John Cole.

My comment on Cole's post:
[This article uses] a remarkably broad definition of "lie" - if Hersh says has a photograph of an event, who knows if it happened? Surely he's lying. When he lies to trick a lawyer into telling the truth - why, that shows he's a liar generally. When he changes irrelevant details to protect people - he's a liar. When he makes a mistake and admits it publicly - he's a liar. When he says something he knows to an every-day standard of certainty but can't put the last bell-and-whistle on it to reach his written standard, and when he gets that bell-and-whistle and prints essentially the story described, or when he doesn't get the last detail and can't write the story, he's a liar.
Certainly Suellentrop mentions Hersh's remarkable record of scoops - but that's a matter of public record, a bow to "balance" while the hand loosens the dagger in its sheath. And it's true that there's a discussion to be had about reporters saying things on camera that they can't get into print (David Okrent[!] paging Judith Miller) - but that's not the point of this piece.


Then read this "more in sadness than in anger" attack on Kos and Armstrong by Chris Suellentrop. His case against Armstrong, who quit blogging when working for Dean, is just laughable yes buttery; his case against Kos is woefully credulous of or disingenuous about Teachout's assertions and willfully ignorant of or maliciously insinuating about Kos's separation of his private consultancy and public fundraising.


Then read this attack on Wesley Clark by Chris Suellentrop. Don't miss the amusing fine print linkage at the bottom of the article.


I haven't read the book in question, but the anti-Dean excerpting by Chris Suellentrop noted here seems to be another example.

Labels:

Sunday, April 10, 2005

Every liberal blogger tears out her or his hair

The NYTimes logs a correction:
"An article on Thursday about economic assumptions by the Bush administration on personal retirement accounts misstated the amount of payroll taxes people would be allowed to divert to them. It is up to 4 percentage points - not 4 percent - of the 6.2 percent of wages that workers now pay in payroll taxes. (Go to Article)."

Anticipated correction for next week:
"An article on Monday about the President's approval rating misstated his popularity. It is 45%, not 450%."

Anticipated correction for the week after that:
"An article on Wednesday about the size of the surplus in the proposed budget misstated the sign of the excess of receipts over expenditures."

Labels: ,