tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post113493586238048750..comments2024-03-06T03:15:58.539-05:00Comments on <b>THE NEW REFORM CLUB</b>: Listening InHunter Bakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1135202816199826322005-12-21T17:06:00.000-05:002005-12-21T17:06:00.000-05:00You take a generally true statement, treat it as a...You take a generally true statement, treat it as an absolute, point out an exception, and do a victory dance. Or you parse the meaning of terms. I do not know if you realize that's sophistic, but it is.<BR/><BR/>I respond to you on the rare occasions you have a legitimate point, as at the beginning of this discussion. Otherwise, I find myself under no obligation to indulge you. I am not here to argue, as life is too short. After my point is made, I'm quite willing to yield the last word, which you invariably take. Rock on.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1135182053807850872005-12-21T11:20:00.000-05:002005-12-21T11:20:00.000-05:00In anticipation of your predictable question, I an...In anticipation of your predictable question, I answered it in advance by thoughtfully providing links in my above comments.<BR/><BR/>One is a scientifical study of media bias, so it must be true.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1135030857232769732005-12-19T17:20:00.000-05:002005-12-19T17:20:00.000-05:00Sorry, I was not clear. It is my opinion that the ...Sorry, I was not clear. It is my <I>opinion</I> that the headline was composed that way to take advantage of the quote marks.<BR/><BR/>Still, I can't find "makes America safer" in <A HREF="http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2005-12-17T165945Z_01_SIB572032_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-PATRIOT.xml" REL="nofollow">the original Reuters report</A>, nor in <A HREF="http://www.dailybulletin.com/sports/news/ci_3320694" REL="nofollow">the president's radio address</A>, on which the article is based.<BR/><BR/>I had expected clever manipulation, but not fabrication.<BR/><BR/>(Let me say, it only <I>appears</I> that way, and I could easily be wrong. I admit I am paranoid. I get <A HREF="http://patterico.com/category/dog-trainer/" REL="nofollow"><I>The Los Angeles Times</I></A>, where such semantic gamesmanship and distortion is the rule, not the exception.)Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1134964320341766222005-12-18T22:52:00.000-05:002005-12-18T22:52:00.000-05:00I'm glad I didn't note it then. I wouldn't want...I'm glad I didn't note it then. I wouldn't want to seem <A HREF="http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664" REL="nofollow">paranoid.</A> I'm sure constructing the sentence with "fifty" first was just luck of the draw.<BR/><BR/>The <A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/bush.iraq/index.html" REL="nofollow">original CNN report</A> uses the numerals 3 and 4, BTW. Another style element destined for the crapper.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1134957284618750602005-12-18T20:54:00.000-05:002005-12-18T20:54:00.000-05:00It would be paranoid of me to note that "fifty" is...<I>It would be paranoid of me to note that "fifty" is spelled out and hides from the skimming eye.</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, that would be pretty paranoid of you. The Chicago Manual of Style rule is that numbers zero to ten are always spelled out; larger numbers are written numerically unless they are the first word in a sentence, when they should be spelled out in full. <BR/><BR/>ARGGGHHHHH! You just reminded me I spent four years working as a copy editor!<BR/><BR/>You are not paranoid, however, to point out that they did, in fact, completely bury the lede of that story, and they certainly wouldn't have stood on the margin-of-error caveat had the numbers run the other way.Kathy Hutchinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11851875819094837357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1134940142556249812005-12-18T16:09:00.000-05:002005-12-18T16:09:00.000-05:00Of course. Even punctuation will do the trick.Bus...Of course. Even punctuation will do the trick.<BR/><BR/><STRONG>Bush Says Eavesdropping 'Makes America Safer'</STRONG><BR/><BR/>Quotation marks? Nah, "scare quotes."<BR/><BR/><STRONG>Bush Says Eavesdropping Makes America Safer</STRONG><BR/><BR/>It should be noted that it's the fresh-faced aspiring world-changer J-school grads who write the headlines. Accomplished polemicist/"reporters" are far more clever in hiding their tracks.<BR/><BR/>I enjoyed this one the other day---notice how CNN buries the turnaround in public opinion that now no longer thinks the war was a mistake:<BR/><BR/><I>Meanwhile, 48 percent of respondents to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said they thought it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq, as opposed to 54 percent of those polled last month. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percent. Fifty percent said it was not a mistake, compared to 45 percent last month.</I> <BR/><BR/>I don't mean to claim the poll itself is significant, as it falls within the margin of error. I just wanted to point out that the turnaround is the most newsworthy feature of the poll, and is unremarked upon. Intentional? I think mebbe. The phrasing should have been that those who thought the war was a mistake are now statistically in the minority. That would be a straightforward accounting of the facts.<BR/><BR/>(It would be paranoid of me to note that "fifty" is spelled out and hides from the skimming eye.)Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com