Errata: “italics removed by you” -> “text in italics removed by you”
heh.
He’s a politician. I expect far more spin out of them than I do opinion columnists.
Remember, it’s only spin if you’re trying to pass it off as fact. Since Dowd’s column is on a page with the word “OPINION” in big letters up top, one can assume she is not trying to do this, or that at least people will know right away to take whatever she says with a grain of salt, as they should with any opinion columnist. (And any politician regardless of party, but I’m afraid not everyone is that smart.)
SNenc: “Remember, it’s only spin if you’re trying to pass it off as fact.”
Says who?
"Since Dowd’s column is on a page with the word “OPINION” in big letters up top, one can assume she is not trying to do this, or that at least people will know right away to take whatever she says with a grain of salt, as they should with any opinion columnist.’
Let me get this straight–when we read op-eds in the New York Times we should assume that they are non-factual? That what is asserted as fact may be true or may just be fabricated?
That’s just a little too much salt for me, nor does fit my impression fo the typical NYT column–and I read them almost everyday.
No, what happened was that I clicked on the “quote” button to respond to your post. When you do that, the parts that you actually wrote yourself come thru, but the part that you cut and pasted from the link you provided did not.
I then cut and pasted the examples you provided, because it was important to show that all the examples referred to instances of triads creating rhythmic eloquence. Bush’s speech does not have this structure, as your analysis alleged.
In other words, I included the quoted examples because I was referring to the quoted examples. Which is why I said “quoted examples” when referring to the quoted examples, after cutting and pasting the quoted examples, so that the board could see the quoted examples I included when analysing the quoted examples.
I am sure the topic of how to quote posts to which you are responding is covered in the “About This Message Board” forum. Have a look there if you are still having trouble understanding the quote function.
No, we can talk about that, if it will help. I have my doubts that it will, as most of my previous dissection of your analysis seems to have gone over your head, but the cut-and-pasted paragraphs that do not come thru the “quote” function don’t support your argument either.
Note the last sentence, which I addressed earlier. No triads achieving rhythmic eloquence in Bush’s speech, therefore none of the examples you cut and pasted apply to that speech.
Unfortunately for your analysis, the structure of a triad as otherwise described in your cut-and-paste does not apply to the Bush speech either.
It does to Dowd’s misquotation:
quote:
Busy chasing off Saddam, the president and vice president had told us that Al Qaeda was spent. “Al Qaeda is on the run,” President Bush said last week. “That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly but surely being decimated. . . . They’re not a problem anymore.”
Sure enough, three sentences there. You could call that a triad. The problem being, as was pointed out in december’s OP, this is a misquotation of the Bush speech. Dowd left parts out, to distort the President’s meaning. I thought you had grasped that concept.
The actual quote is as follows:
quote:
Al Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely being decimated. Right now, about half of all the top al Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they’re not a problem anymore.
Your cut-and-paste defines a triad as follows:
So, in what “unit of language” does the original, un-misquoted speech form a triad? In words? Nope, there are 44 words in the passage. Phrases? No, I count at least five. Clauses? Five or six. Sentences? Four. Paragraphs? Just one. Entire arguments? Nope, only one. As I mentioned earlier, this rhetorical structure is that of first stating the conclusion, and then giving the evidence that underlies the conclusion. Sort of like this:
See the structure?
Now I am sure that Maureen Dowd could cut up practically any post in this thread to make it into a triad, and to substantially alter the meaning. But that is just the problem.
I really think this particular horse deserves a decent burial. Dowd misquoted the President to make him say something that he did not. Spin to justify that spin winds up making the lefties sound dizzy.
Regards,
Shodan
So? The Straight Dopes technical aids for quoting are not idiot-proof. Your responsibility to make correct quotes still remain.
Your defence is actually the equivalent of Dowd saying “Only some parts of what the guy said was interesting so I just wrote those parts. Sure, I could have indicated that in the text, but why bother?”
Actual consequence: You edited out parts in the middle of the quote but left stuff you felt was needed to make a point in your argument. The parts that were left out, you felt were “less important”. You did not indicate that you had left them out.
And you are free to do so. If you properly indicate that you have indeed left out part of the original text. By the use of “…” or “[…]” or “<snip>”. What you are not allowed to do is just remove stuff at will without telling people that you have done so.
The parts you removed were in the middle of the passage you quoted. And the reason why you should have indicated your editing is that anyone who read your post had no way of knowing from reading it that what I had originally posted (“cut and pasted” to use your terminology) were not only those examples, but also the preceding description of “the rule of three”. That is why we have rules for proper quoting my friend.
Utterly irrelevant. These are not rules of proper quoting in the SDMD; these are rules for proper quoting at all times.
To conclude this: Your way of quoting me were formally incorrect. In an academic or journalistic context it would count as a far worse distortion than Dowds quoting of Bush or the selective quoting of Chirac.
You were “breaking the law” so to speak while the others were only “bending” it, to suit their respective purposes, granted. Now given that you are actually trying to defend, and explain away your behaviour, what does that make you, given your assertion that Dowd’s quoting techniques are dishonest?
Logically consistent.
I quoted all the parts of your post that were relevent to your argument, and refuted them. I included all the parts on which I was commenting, in order to show that what you said was horseshit. I even included the parts that did not come thru the quote function, because I was demonstrating that they were incorrect and did not demonstrate what you claimed to be happening.
Then you complained that I didn’t include the part of your post that you cut and pasted from another website. I did include the link, as well as all the parts I was commenting on. I did not leave out any of your logic, I did not change your meaning in any way - I just demonstrated that your post was (and remains) wrong.
But you complained that I did not include the part you cut and pasted. So I included that, and refuted it just as soundly as the rest of your nonsensical pseudo-intellectual foolishness.
Now you are clinging to your silly self-righteous whining about how the quote functions on the SDMB without addressing the fact that none of your arguments can hold water.
You haven’t a logical leg to stand on. I did not change the meaning of anything you have quoted. I included every relevant part of every one of your arguments. There were no distortions, no deletions of antecedent references, no deception of any sort.
You got your ass handed to you analytically, and you are whining about non-existent offenses because you haven’t got anything else to complain about.
Pathetic.
Regards,
Shodan
Spinsanity is a site that analyzes media manipulative rhetoric. Although the writers are liberals, they criticize both sides. In this column, they point out that Dowd’s misrepresentation has been repeated by a number of others.
Recap.
So, Bush said Al-Qaeda is on the run, and are being slowly and surely decimated and added a sentence, which if interpreted in good faith, implies that the top half of Al-Qaeda operatives are not a problem.
Dowd adds ellipsis to interpret it as Bush claiming that Al-Qaeda is not a problem anymore.
Case 1: Dowd deliberately wanted to spin
Case 2: Dowd interpreted the “in either case” differently. The sentence construction wasn’t 100% clear.
Well… let us assume the worst case scenario (Case 1). Not a good thing to do. Weakens her reputation but seriously, given the scale of lies, deception and nonsense spouted in the media, this is supposed to be egregious enough to be a freaking ISSUE?!? Anyone feels otherwise?
In either case (ha!), it was CRYSTAL CLEAR that Bush was implying that Al-Qaeda is a terribly weakened organization. Those who use Dowd’s statement (as per december’s citation above) only want to criticize Bush for implying something, which in the wake of current developments looks apparently wrong. Any objections to this criticism?
From a political POV I agree that this is small potatoes. Bush was making an upbeat comment. The important issue is whether we win or lose the war on terror, not the precise degree of enthusiasm in the leader’s pep talk.
OTOH from journalistic POV, it is a major no-no to change the meaning of a quote by selective omissions. Such a practice would have been unthinkable in the New York Times of 50 years ago. It fits into a pattern with the Jayson Blair scandal as well as other manipulative rhetoric in the Times (listed at the end of the Spinsanity article). It shows how the Times has deteriorated.
It’s a big deal that this was done by a regular columnist for America’s leading newspaper, and that the Times has chosen not to make a correction. The Times sets the standard for the rest of the media. If this practice is OK for the Times, it must be OK in general. litost’s casual acceptance of this practice, along with several other posters, shows that our standards of integrity have gone down. One would like to see the Times elevate our standards, not pull them down farther.
One would like to see the Times elevate our standards, not pull them down farther.
To be sure, december, but one would also like to see you applying the same skepticism and rigor towards the bloggers and conservative publications whose info and opinions you depend on as you do towards the Times. Your rhetoric suggests that you want the Times to lead the standards. Your practice, however, shows that, in actuality, you want to hold them to a unique standard while giving just about everyone else a free pass. Why don’t you devote about two weeks out of every month to following-up on bias over Fox News, the WSJ op-ed page, the National Review and so forth ;). Perhaps then you’ll be in a better position to offer judgments on what exactly has and hasn’t deterioriated in journalism.
I have followed your advice here.
** december**: "I have followed your advice"
Ah, a reformed decmeber… 
In no time at all we’ll be changing your name to May ;).
Well, to return the favor, sorta, here is an Alterman column on a related theme that you’ll probably enjoy; but, to be fair, you might want to read this one too.
Alterman deserves congratulations for his honorable defence of an ideological enemy.
Change my name to May? Nah. Too permissive for a conservative.
I didn’t casually accept the practice. I said that, in comparison to the degree with which lies and deception and nonsense are spouted in the media on a daily basis on every freaking issue, I thought this was not egregious. In other words, if you were genuinely concerned about the issue of spin, you would have chosen other examples, not this particular one.
And, what Mandelstam said.
Maureen Dowd managed to include the entire, unelided Bush quote in her column today. So, in a sense, she has corrected her error. However, she didn’t admit that her original elided version of Bush’s quote was misleading or or even point out the problem. Readers of the this thread and certain web sites know why she included this full quote, but most readers oh her column will not. Her non-specific correction won’t lead others in the media who relied on her original column to make corrections in their columns. This is a cowardly, half-hearted attempt at integrity.
BTW note that the new column supports the prior one by implicitly misusing the word “decimated.”
Of course, “decimate” does not mean “fully destroy”. It actually means
*1. To destroy or kill a large part of (a group).
2a.To inflict great destruction or damage on: The fawns decimated my rose bushes.
2b. To reduce markedly in amount: a profligate heir who decimated his trust fund.
3. To select by lot and kill one in every ten of. *
Bush’s word was precisely accurate; Dowd wasn’t willing to admit that she made a mistake. And, the Times was willing to let her get away with a non-admission.
BTW the Daily News today ran a column criticizing Dowd’s column. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/87255p-79552c.html
Just weighing in with my vote here …
OTOH, in the complete quote, it seems clear that Bush was referring not to all of al Qaeda but to those who are "either jailed or dead."
This is what I, personally, got out of his statement.
Never heard of this O’Dowd lady so I don’t know if she’s the type of reporter that is just incompetent or out to twist words. Either way, since when do you expect the media to get anything right?!
This is extremely weak. As Shodan has already suggested, please point out how his method of quoting you misrepresented your viewpoint, how it took something out of context to imply a false meaning, how it was anything other than an inadvertent use of the quote button. Sorry, dude, you lost this one unless you can do better than this.
The Lufkin (Texas) Daily News has higher standards than the New York Times.
Because of the Times’s arrogance, I find this a delicious comeuppance.
Considering that Dowd’s columns are usually all style and no substance, and are mainly there to tickle your funny bone, I don’t think much of the discrepancy one way or the other.