June 7, 2004
"TREMENDOUSLY SLOPPY WORK," SAID ONE BLOGGER SYMPATHETIC TO THE TIMES.
Reagan Legacy Looming Large Over Campaign (Adam Nagourney, The New York Times, 6/7/04)
"Reagan showed what high stature that a president can have — and my fear is that Bush will look diminished by comparison," said one Republican sympathetic to Mr. Bush, who did not want to be quoted by name criticizing the president.Let's concede at the outset that George Bush has not yet shown himself to be as great a President as Ronald Reagan. It is unlikely that he will be able to do so, as Reagan singlehandedly saved the nation from the only enemy able to defeat us (and no, I don't mean the USSR). Also, we can concede that President Bush' communication skills differ from President Reagan's -- though Mr. Bush throughout his Presidency has delivered speeches at key moments that have swayed the nation and succeeded where success was necessary.
What is striking about this statement is that its probative value depends entirely on who is speaking, information the Times will not give us. The Times understands that the identity of the source makes a difference. Why else would it identify the speaker as a "Republican sympathetic to Mr. Bush"? But we are not to know whether the speaker is Karl Rove or Kevin Phillips. (I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out that the speaker is Senator McCain, the cab driver who delivered Mr. Nagourney to the office yesterday, or some Times' reporter who keeps his Republican registration in order to provide the paper with blind quotes.)
Given that the speaker's identity makes all the difference, the Times should not have allowed a blind quote here. This isn't even so much evidence of Bush-hatred, as it is symbolic of the acceptance of anonymous quotes as standard practice, even when no legitimate purpose is served. I am, however, a regular reader who sympathizes with the Times.
Posted by David Cohen at June 7, 2004 12:13 PMHits on one of my pet peeves with the media. It's always "critics this" and "critics that." Well, who are they? A variant is substituting observers for critics. Oh, and the ever popular "raises questions."
Posted by: Rick T. at June 7, 2004 12:38 PMOh, please.
Anyone catch the Sunday headline at the Times? THREE top line articles for that day. Reagan’s death, which, wow, they actually gave the biggest font…. As opposed, I suppose, to running it as an obit with all the rest in the Metropolitan section.
Second, and starting at the far left….. a picture from the BELMOT STAKES…. And, lest we need to note, there wasn’t even a triple crown winner to report. Just another running of the race.
Oh, and third, in the middle, next to Reagan…. Anyone care to guess? Go ahead, take a shot, it’s an easy one. What do you think, if you HAD to guess??
You got it. The Abu Ghraib prison investigation, top line of the paper, same level, but smaller font, as the death of Ronald Reagan.
This is a G.D. disgrace. The Newseum runs a web page where you can see headlines from all over the country (and world). Not ONE of those papers chose to treat Reagan’s death in such a manner. I am, note, not even covering the news-editorial writing, which was entirely in form for the NY Grimes.
I’m wondering when the next time I will spend dime one on that paper is.
It's funny how people like Nagourney never seem to be able to find a blind quote that, for example, criticizes the competence and stature of a Democrat leader like Kerry or Daschle or Clinton (either one). Are we really to believe that he can't find just one person who's both a registered Democrat and less than happy with current circumstances?
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at June 7, 2004 1:35 PManyone who thinks that a week of remembering Reagan's accomplishments will not accrue to the benefit of his direct political descendant (i.e. GWB) is delusional..
yet another example fo Demo's 'whistling past the graveyard'
Posted by: JonofAtlanta at June 7, 2004 2:37 PMReagan singlehandedly saved the nation from the only enemy able to defeat us (and no, I don't mean the USSR)
OK, I'll bite. Jimmy Carter? Inflation? Malaise?
Posted by: PapayaSF at June 7, 2004 3:00 PMPogo knew.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 7, 2004 3:17 PMLet me get this straight--people will think about how grand Reagan was, and Bush obviously can't compare, so they'll be drawn to the gravitas of one John Forbes Kerry. Huh? How can all the eulogies about Reagan's steadfast principles be anything but a huge plus for Bush and minus for Kerry?
Posted by: brian at June 7, 2004 3:26 PMAh, yes. The litterers
Posted by: pj at June 7, 2004 3:30 PMBrian's exactly right. In fact, Kerry's dropped completely off the front page, whereas Bush will be mentioned or accidentally alluded to in every single article about Reagan.
Posted by: Timothy at June 7, 2004 4:40 PMWe have met the enemy and they are us.
Posted by: Uncle Bill at June 7, 2004 4:42 PM>...so they'll be drawn to the gravitas of one
>John Forbes Kerry. Huh?
1) That's JFKerry WHO SERVED IN VIETNAM.
2) Isn't there something in the preface to Screwtape Letters about how "Satan fell through the force of gravitas"?
Posted by: Ken at June 8, 2004 6:29 PM