Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

« The Bourne What's-Happening-acy redux || Back to Blog | Elisabeth Kübler-Ross dies »

August 26, 2004

Objective words

According to Editor and Publisher today:

Two days ago, in a front page news article, two New York Times reporters referred to the Swift Boat charges as "mostly unsubstantiated." The paper went a step further this morning on the front page, when reporter Elizabeth Bumiller flatly called the charges "unsubstantied," without a qualifier, in the first sentence of her story on the resignation of the national counsel for President Bush.

Other newspapers were not nearly as bold today...

So long as we have to choose words for sentences, objectivity is impossible.

Posted by D. Weinberger at August 26, 2004 12:47 PM


Comments

I hope I'm not too simplistic here, but why can't journalists just put "alleged" in front of political charges, like they do for criminal suspects not yet convicted?

Posted by: Tad Sketchy | August 26, 2004 05:36 PM


As I hopped on the train at Sydney town hall, headed only one stop up to central station, I noticed a man, probably in his mid to late fifties, sitting opposite me.

Pinned to his coat was a large badge, and on it was clearly marked, the words "Veterans for Kerry". I assume he was an American tourist in Sydney, who felt he had to make his point publicly, even though he was so far from home. Some veterans clearly feel very strongly about this issue.

Posted by: Vergil Iliescu | August 26, 2004 11:31 PM


Post a comment

Guidelines for Commenting

Basically, you can say what you want. (Click here for the fine print.)

If you haven't left a comment here before, your comment may be put into a queue for me to approve. Sorry for the delay. Blame the damn spammers.