Fair. And balanced, too.

hound · **Posted:** Fri Jul 09, 2004 10:05 pm

Kindly forgive this right wing rant, but...NY Times 'News Analysis' by David Johnston lede - WASHINGTON, July 9 â€” Although the Senate Intelligence Committee found no evidence that the Bush administration had tried to coerce the C.I.A. to produce exaggerated prewar warnings about Iraq's weapons programs, its findings did little to still the furious debate about whether the White House and the Pentagon tried to influence the agency's conclusions.Ok., granted. Although the Senate Intelligence Commitee found no evidence that George W. Bush personally ordered the rape and torture of children at the prison at Abu Graibh, this paragraph did very little to convince non-upper-west-side Americans that the New York Times is dealing cards from an honest deck..puh-leez.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Fri Jul 09, 2004 11:31 pm

Politics entirely aside, that's a very confusing lede.

TheWalrus · **Posted:** Fri Jul 09, 2004 11:33 pm

Yeah, I agree with blanp. That lede doesn't make any sense, slanted or otherwise.

Bolder1 · **Posted:** Sun Jul 11, 2004 5:12 pm

I'll rise to the bait, as an Upper West Side dwelling NYT'er...It's certainly confusing (I'll say "overly nuanced" but I don't see how it's slanted in any particular way. The writer is simply (well, not simply) observing the state of affairs after the release of the Senate report. Do you think anyone read the report, or articles about the report, and said, "Yeah, well, that settles that. The administration in no way influenced the pre-war intelligence process."Maybe you did, but I didn't, and I don't think the majority of people who care about the issue did either. I'll bet there are a lot of congressmen from both parties who wish right now we'd never invaded Iraq. It's a fiasco at this point for the whole country, not just Bush, so I don't think we're fanning any new fires.There's a reason many of us live on the UWS. It's affordable, and there are two subway lines. (gratuitous flame-bait ahead...)Your knee-jerk, incoherent babblings do nothing to advance the debate. And "puh-leeze" went out with acid wash jeans and jellies.
<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by hound:
Kindly forgive this right wing rant, but...NY Times 'News Analysis' by David Johnston lede - WASHINGTON, July 9 â€” Although the Senate Intelligence Committee found no evidence that the Bush administration had tried to coerce the C.I.A. to produce exaggerated prewar warnings about Iraq's weapons programs, its findings did little to still the furious debate about whether the White House and the Pentagon tried to influence the agency's conclusions.Ok., granted. Although the Senate Intelligence Commitee found no evidence that George W. Bush personally ordered the rape and torture of children at the prison at Abu Graibh, this paragraph did very little to convince non-upper-west-side Americans that the New York Times is dealing cards from an honest deck..puh-leez.<hr></blockquote>

hound · **Posted:** Sun Jul 11, 2004 5:13 pm

BEGIN flamebait response :
Fortunately, as you are a New Yorker, your UWS vote will count for naught in November...
: END flamebait responseSeriously, though, I am deeply offended by your objection to my use of the term "puh-leez", which seems to me no more dated than the Timesian group-think on display here. And (forgive my opening preposition, I am fully aware it violates the stylebook) the Times is not uniformly unconscious - the other story running, and to my mind, much the superior story - quotes Senator Roberts on the pernicious groupthink within the intelligence community. Now that is a radical position for the Times to take - an indictment of inside baseball.For an example of a well-written (and presumably well-edited) lede, you might want to check this column from the New York daily with (IMHO) the best claim to the title "journal of record."Finally, I did actually spell it "puh-leez" and not "puh-leeze" - so get over your fixation on final 'e's that has plagued you since Dan Quayle last played 'one-potato, two-potatoe'. Unless the quote-checking machine at the Times approves of your redacting technique, of course.[ July 11, 2004: Message edited by: hound ]

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Sun Jul 11, 2004 7:27 pm

Sorry. I'm still trying to understand the lede.

Bolder1 · **Posted:** Sun Jul 11, 2004 9:43 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by hound:
BEGIN flamebait response :
Fortunately, as you are a New Yorker, your UWS vote will count for naught in November...
: END flamebait responseSeriously, though, I am deeply offended by your objection to my use of the term "puh-leez", which seems to me no more dated than the Timesian group-think on display here. And (forgive my opening preposition, I am fully aware it violates the stylebook) <hr></blockquote>
I think "and" is a conjunction. ...And I conceded the point that it was a not particularly artful lede. But you've not made the point that the lede was biased. Yes, I am defending my employer. We do a lot of silly things, and when it's warranted I'll join in the piling on, but too many people (I suspect you're one of them) start from the premise that there's some sort of left-wing conspiracy being hatched here. Spend 10 minutes in the newsroom, and you'll know that's not the case. But it does appear to be our curse... ...and I might just register in Pennsylvania this November!

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Sun Jul 11, 2004 10:22 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by hound:
And (forgive my opening preposition, I am fully aware it violates the stylebook) <hr></blockquote>
Those of you who right style books might find these comments of interest.

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Mon Jul 12, 2004 1:02 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Paul Wiggins:

Those of you who right style books might find these comments of interest.<hr></blockquote>heh. mr. wiggins to the rescue of this debate.

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Mon Jul 12, 2004 1:36 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by jjmoney62:
heh. mr. wiggins to the rescue of this debate.<hr></blockquote>
Wouldn't have thought that concept '' wtf gives at the NYT with a lead like that'' needed much debate. :-)

tiptoe39 · **Posted:** Mon Jul 12, 2004 12:10 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Paul Wiggins:

Those of you who right style books might find these comments of interest.<hr></blockquote>They obviously aren't the right style books.Jen

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Mon Jul 12, 2004 7:40 pm

Tee hee. What did W.C. Fields say ...never work with children, animals or copy editors .... :-)

Testy Copy Editors

Fair. And balanced, too.

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links