new stuff (posted 11/19-22):
Sam Schneider submits for our consideration the following, after reading
The New York Times on Saturday, November 21. Page A11:
Thus, while Mr.Starr has not uncovered sufficient evidence on
Whitewater to bring criminal charges against the Clintons or impeach the
President, his office is still hoping for a
breakthrough. Sam comments:
"Well, I have a number of issues about that. 1) How is this, the fact that the
office is still hoping for a breakthrough, known? 2) Is the role of a prosecutor
to find any wrong doing or, to hope to uncover any? The whole sentence just
strikes me as odd to be appearing in a standard news article."
Some notes of my own on our brave new "fully mediated" world:
New York
Times, front page, Tuesday, Nov. 17 ("From the Brink to the Blink:
Washington's Iraq Weekend") :
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16--Defense Secretary William S. Cohen told the
President to attack Iraq. Her aids say Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright
. . . would agree.
But it was President Clinton's national security
adviser, Samuel K. Berger, serving as the conduit between the senior officials
and the President, whose view prevailed. Spurred by a vague bulletin on CNN,
Mr. Berger advised Mr. Clinton on Saturday morning to hold off. . . .
.
. . A few minutes past 8 [a.m., Saturday] the phone rang in Mr. Berger's
Washington home. The galvanizing news came not from the Central Intelligence
Agency, but CNN, reporting from Baghdad that Iraq had blinked. The Iraqis had
sent a letter to the U.N. agreeing to allow weapons inspectors to resume their
work. SAME ISSUE of the Times:
appearing in columns on either side of the story quoted above, other stories
that pertain to matters we have discussed in the seminar...
In the
column just to the right, we see the paper's lead story for the day, "Allies See
Bombing of Iraq as Inevitable," with the subhead: "Hussein Likely to Break Vow,
U.S. Says." I leave analysis to you, except to ask you to examine who the
sources for this story seem to be. I say "seem" because you will be hard
pressed to find names of actual human beings, although much is attributed to
entire governments and government departments ("The United States believes";
"Officials said"; "The State Department expects," etc.) Big picture: What's
going on here? Reading with "critical intelligence," what questions do you want
to ask about this story, even if the answers are impossible to determine? What
other stories are bubbling just beneath the surface of this one?
In
the column to the immediate left of the "Sandy Berger Watches CNN" story, we
find "Gore, In Malaysia, Says Its Leaders Suppress Freedom." This is an update
on the story about the arrest of Mr. Anwar that we picked apart in October. At
that time, in addition to questioning the American (or more precisely, Seth
Mydans') conception of what constitutes Muslim "moderation," "extremism," and
"conservatism," we also probed the linkages between the text of the story and
the ongoing story, reported on the business pages, of the "Asian financial
crisis." In the Times story I call to your attention here, the two issues are
linked, explicitly. And now it's the American V.P., not Seth Mydans, who is
making the connections. Check it out.
Meantime (and please do note: this is the lamest of
transition words): Even as Gore backs the cause of "Reformasi!" in Malaysia,
there seems a decided nervousness over similar cries in another Southeast Asian
Muslim nation--Indonesia. On the Times' front page for Saturday,
November 14, we noted in class the large color picture depicting "student
mayhem," beneath the headline, "Student Protest in Indonesia Explodes in
Violence, and 5 are Killed." In (yes, my favorite foreign correspondent) Seth
Mydans' story, we read the opening paragraph:
JAKARTA, Indonesia, Nov. 13--Students, thugs and soldiers fought
pitched battles in the streets of Jakarta tonight, as parliament adopted several
decrees [adopted? should it not be imposed?] intended to nudge this
suffering nation toward a more democratic
future. Beyond noting the interesting term
"thugs," we observed with special interest the wording of the next paragraph, in
which "soldiers and riot police" [of the dictatorship] were described as
"well-ordered"--and this despite the fact that in the same sentence they are
said to have "fired volley after volley above and directly into throngs of
demonstrators and into the grounds of a university." Five were killed, the
story said, but it did not say whether all of these were students, or whether
they were members of the group deemed by the reporter "thugs" (if they are not a
subset of the students), or whether any of the five were soldiers. No
information. Just a number. We did learn that the demonstrators, or at least
some of them, were "throwing rocks and gasoline bombs" and that "like the
students whose protests helped bring down [former dictator] Mr. Suharto, they
"were pressing with the passion of the young for immediate, if vaguely defined
changes." (It is the youth of the demonstrators, not the prevailing
conditions of dictatorship and economic depression, which are said by Mydans to
account for their "passion," please note.) But most interesting of all, we
learn that "unlike those earlier protesters [against Suharto], [this group]
demand[ed] that Mr. Suharto's successor, President B.J. Habibie, step down
immediately." The apparently omniscient Mr. Mydans declares without
equivocation, and also without the least bit of evidentiary support, that this
demand "was less representative of the national mood."
Quite apart from the practical question of how one gauges the
"national mood" in a nation spanning many time zones and comprising 13,000
islands, the reader may well be curious to know if this judgment on the
reporter's part is logically related to his use of the term "thugs" in the
story's lead. For no such term was used in descriptions of the earlier, and at
times no less raucous, protests which helped to bring about the downfall of the
Suharto dictatorship.
How closely are editors at the Times "watching their words"?
Is there thought to be more leeway for error, or for journalistic license, when
the story is about a far-off and poorly understood place?
On the subject of LEAKS:
Look at the page-one Times story
for Wed., Nov. 11 about CIA director George Tenet. ("C.I.A. Chief Vowed to Quit
If Clinton Freed Israeli Spy"). No named sources. Story is favorable to
Tenet--tends to deflect criticism regarding his role in the recent Wye
negotiations. Could it be that Tenet and his bureaucratic allies (who, we
speculate, leaked for him) want to dissociate his name with the notion of a
quid pro quo--convicted spy Pollard's release in exchange for Netanyahu's
signing off on the Wye Accords? To be more explicit: No matter what Clinton
now decides about Pollard's fate, and no matter when, Tenet has taken some
preliminary steps to avoid having the blame be pinned on him. As in a game of
musical chairs, the last one to act becomes the odd man out. Tenet is making
his move early? Just a theory, mind you! I'm no cynic!
To better
appreciate the context of this story, I would strongly urge you to examine the
fascinating Tim Weiner story of 10/23/98, p. A12, "The U.S. Intelligence Chief
Steps Up to the Plate." Extraordinarily favorable to Tenet, in midst of Wye
negotiations. Also pertinent: NYT 10/24/98, p. A6, "The C.I.A.: New Role
As Umpire May Bring More Risk," and NYT 10/26/98, p. A8, "C.I.A.'s Role
in Mideast Peace Process Promtps Outcry and a Call for Senate Hearings."
Finally: Did you notice the decision recently made by ABC/Disney not
to air a "prime-time special" about the crash of TWA Flight 800? The TV movie,
made by Oliver Stone, proposes an accidental missile shoot-down. This didn't
sit well with folks on the side side at ABC. Read all about it: NYT
11/7/98, p. A12; and op-ed, Jeff Greenfield, "When Facts Alone Won't Do,"
NYT, 11/2/98, p. A27.
Oh, and two references:
re: our classes on lying, and on
Sissela Bok's ideas: you may be interested in Jeffrey Rosen, "The Perjury Trap,"
The New Yorker 8/10/98, pp. 28-32.
re: our discussions about
privacy, look at Jonathan Frazen's "Imperial Bedroom," The New
Yorker, 10/12/98, pp. 48-53. A novel take on this subject--we have too much
privacy, Frazen says, not too little.
PT--11/19/98.
previous musings:
The "lead" [opening paragraph] for a certain class of news stories can be
written in rough form days or even weeks ahead of time. The story must be
widely anticipated. While such stories are by no means the norm, they do occur
from time to time. "John Glenn's Return to Orbit" is a story that fits the
type. The lead for this one could have been in the works for months. A failure
or launch calamity was always a possibility. No lead could have anticipated the
details of a failure. But a reporter on the "space" beat certainly could have
had a lead ready in expectation of a normal launch. I am assuming, however,
that the lead that appeared in the New York Times was not the product of
long deliberation. But then, who knows? Here's the lead:
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla., Oct. 29--John Glenn, an astronaut again at 77,
returned to orbit today in the space shuttle Discovery for a rendezvous with the
memory of a time when exploits of early astronauts held the world in thrall and
for a long-awaited encore, this time as the oldest traveler in outer
space. Atrocious.
Particularly in view of the fact that the author (veteran space reporter John
Noble Wilford) could have written these words four months ago--they offer no
information, beyond the date, that we did not know or expect to be the case
prior to the event. Leads that tell us what we already know should at the very
least be clear. But it is reasonable to expect them to be even more--vivid,
even eloquent. That's why I contend that this one's a real clunker.
But
many leads in the Times are less than eloquent. Two columns to the left
in the same issue (10/30), we find this:
With five days left to go until the election, Senator Alfonse M.
D'Amato steered his campaign in a new direction yesterday, releasing a
television advertisement that invokes a 1980 investigation into Representative
Charles E. Schumer in an effort to portray the Democratic challenger as
dishonest. The
identifying mark of a Times lead, it seems, is a clause like that last
one, tacked on seemingly out of fear that the reader will not get beyond the
first paragraph. There's an effort to cram three sentences' worth of info into
a single sentence. When sentences become ungainly, like this one, errors of
judgment are more likely to occur. In this instance, not only does it offend my
sensibility as a reader to have ". . . in an effort to portray the Democratic
challenger as dishonest" placed at the end of an already complex sentence (too
much! let me come up for air!); it occurs to me, on close inspection, that the
full statement is patently false. Here are the beginning and the end of the
lead, spliced together without all the intervening data, including the
candidates' middle initials (Oh, that Alfonse D'Amato! I thought you
meant Alfonse R. D'Amato!)
With five days left to go until the election, Senator Alfonse M.
D'Amato steered his campaign in a new direction yesterday. . . . [He made] an
effort to portray [his opponent] as
dishonest." This
is a new direction? Clearly not, by anyone's standards. What's "new" is the
airing of an ad that "invokes a 1980 investigation" of Schumer. Not "the effort
to portray...etc." It is astonishing that this lead and the Glenn lead made the
front page in their current formulations. No matter how poor the writing of
reporters is, it is the job of editors to tidy it up, especially for the front
page.
I would be interested in posting examples of leads composed of
short and clear sentences. If any of you find such leads as you work on your
projects, please submit them to me in e-mails and I'll post them. Of course, I
am also interested in posting examples of defective leads.
--PT, 11/2.
AND WHILE we're on the subject of "Space," please consider the following:
According to Mission Control, Houston, shortly after "orbital
insertion" [i.e., riding atop a flame-spewing rocket into earth orbit] and
"achieving a microgravity environment" [(near)-zero-g is something you
achieve?], the seven Discovery astronauts "were monitored for onset of
space adaptation syndrome."
slightly less euphemistic
translation: Houston watched to see if anyone lost their breakfast.
In the same vein....On the third day of the mission, "Payload Specialist
Number Two" [Glenn--whose attempt to be humble comes out sounding like
Newspeak] revealed to reporters on the ground that he had experienced no
"stomach awareness" upto that point.
--PT 11/2.
On the OBJECTIVITY question:
Another front-page Times boo-boo.
Look at the 10/29 article by Richard Perez-Pena, headlined "Pataki Defies
Expectations And Becomes Quiet Force." The first reasonable question, I think,
is: whose expectations are we talking about?
At the end of a lengthy
two-paragraph lead (perhaps 150 words), we are told:
"Critics in both
parties predicted that he would not amount to much." Apart from the logical
question, "which critics, exactly?" consider the very next sentence, which
begins a new paragraph:
"They were wrong."
Two long sentences later:
"Helped substantially by a cooperating economy [yuck!], he has emerged as a
shrewd political operator. He grappled successfully with the Legislature on
issues like crime and spending, and now is expected to win re-eleaction
easily--no small feat for a Republican in a heavily Democratic state. . . . "
At this point an "expert" is cited: the "dean of the college of Liberal Arts
and Sciences at the State University of New York at New Paltz, who closely
studies state government." It's the Dean's opinion that Pataki "is a far, far
better politician than people expected." That is, the Dean merely repeats the
generalization that the article is obliged to flesh out, make substantive. But
this is perhaps beside the point. Would "close study" by anyone
legitimize statements of opinion like those I've pointed out?
["Folks
said he'd not amount to much. They were wrong."]
For the record, there is
no indication whatever that the reporter is engaging in "news analysis" or
writing a whimsical "reporter's notebook" piece.
And while we're at it:
look back in your history books to see when New York has had Republican and
Democratic governors. I think you will find that it is not the least bit
unusual for the state's governor to be a Republican.
posted 10/21:
- Keith Kasten ran across something interesting while reading the Cornell
Daily Sun during the first week of October. He sent me this e-mail:
" . . . [F]or those who regularly take math and physics, this quote
from a physics prof., in Wednesday's Cornell Daily Sun, is no surprise:
`On the other hand, Americans are deeply divided on how to balance different
values when they point to diametrically opposite conclusions, and on separating
the villains from the victims in this sorry saga consuming our public life.'
I would only add--and I am confident that Keith will agree--that it is
unfair to single out physics profs.!
and dating back to September:
- My "shocker of the week" (about which no one should be shocked) is a
snippet from a TV discussion about an upcoming vote of shareholders conducted by
a Fortune-500 company. This vote was referred to by an executive of the
corporation as "a consent solicitation."
This is a phrase that seems
to me more horrible the more I think about it. Think about it.
older stuff:
- September 24, 1998: A commentator on CNBC, the cable network devoted to
financial news, stated that a Fortune 500 company would soon "issue a
pre-warning" about earnings for the current quarter of the fiscal year.
The report continued: Among the issues raised by financial analysts about this
company was "the status of ongoing channel-inventory depletion efforts."
- A reporter on the "The ABC Evening News With Peter Jennings" (Sept. 16)
described Boris Yeltsin in the following manner: "He stands astride the former
USSR like some sort of shrunken Atlas."
- A Sunday morning commentator on NBC (Sept. 20), attempting to describe the
head start one politician apparently had made in his primary campaign against
party rivals, observed that he had "eked out a leg-up over the others."
- Re. sentences that end with a preposition: A recent op-ed in the New
York Times suggested of President Clinton:
"He has run out of room in
which to maneuver."
Compare this with the alternative:
"He has run
out of room to maneuver in."
Which do you prefer?
- Department of Obfuscation:
"Negative earnings growth" is expected
for a certain financial services company in the third quarter of 1998. That is
to say, profits are expected to shrink. Although it is impossible to be certain
from the jargon alone, it even seems possible that the company will lose money
in the third quarter. Hearing this euphemism, I immediately thought of a
certain physician who in an interview with me some years ago used the odd phrase
"negative patient-outcomes." He meant "patients who died."
- More obfuscation and indirection:
"There are certain parameters
that need to be met in terms of performance . . ."
Can you
figure out a way to fix this sentence?
- Apropos of my comments on some of your personal essays: I did hear on the
weather channel today (Sept. 8) that "most of the rain activity is just
offshore."
- Candidate for mixed metaphor of the year:
Referring to the macroeconomic
"cause" that pushed Russia's economy over the edge (I am further mixing the
metaphor), one sage recently commented:
"That was the straw that blew up the
camel's back." (Scout's honor. I heard this on CNBC, Sept. 9).
- Mark this use of figurative language by former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson,
who now directs the Institute of Politics at the Kennedy School of Government at
Harvard. In a front-page New York Times article that appeared the day
after the videotapes of Clinton's grand jury testimony were aired, Simpson was
quoted as saying of the President:
His life is bounding from precipice to precipice like a huge mountain goat,
bridging crevasse after crevasse and people shooting at him with high-powered
rifles and the other side crumbling as he lands, just like in the movies
(NYT, 9/23/98, p.1). Got that? |
|
