I can remember teachers that insisted every writer’s voice is unique. Teachers could recognize papers that weren’t the student’s work.
Writing is a big part of bureaucrats jobs.
Wouldn’t the wording and writing style easily give away the White House Op-ed author?
No. If this were the case, then the person would already be identified.
I’m not totally convinced the Op-Ed is genuine.
If it is, then he or she is sabotaging the agenda to protect the country from Trump’s worst impulses. The insiders can’t do that job now that it’s been publicly acknowledged and exposed.
Conflicting intentions makes me question if this person is real? Maybe it’s actually a Trump ally attacking the resistance within the administration?
It was probably edited by NYT editors before being printed, unless it specifically states otherwise.
I saw speculation somewhere that the piece used a word peculiar to Pence and that we should therefore think that Pence either wrote it or contributed to it. It just makes me think that someone threw that word in there to implicate Pence and cause more dissension.
The bit that’s really identifying, assuming the piece is 100% true, is the direct quote half way down it
If that’s an accurate report of a real conversation, then presumably whoever’s quoted knows who they said it to. And so has a fairly good idea who the writer is.
Of course, they probably aren’t telling either.
Yes, there are subtle subconscious language choices that *can be *deeply predictable to machine learning techniques, and give away authorship. But I’m wholly sceptical that in a few-hundred-word op-ed that a bunch of editors have had their fingers all over, you’ll get enough data to be 100% sure of any culprit.
I immediately thought that Chief of Staff John Kelly might he behind the resistance within the White House.
He gave up a plum job as Secretary of Homeland Security to bring order to the White House. It’s been reported he takes the brunt of Trump’s temper tantrums. IMHO He’s obviously there *serving his country and the office of the presidency. * I don’t think he’s there as a Trump loyalist.
I’m not sure he’d resort to hiding paperwork from Trump. That sounds amateurish for a former Marine General.
Why don’t they just check to see who’s Crayons are dullest?
The NY Times is not Fox News. There is no way the Times would fictionalize this. The author is not anonymous to the Times editorial staff.
The Times also understand very clearly that they are open to a libel suit and fallout that could end the newspaper if they didn’t have the author bullet proof. It’s telling that the WH is not threatening a libel lawsuit or AFAIK have even mentioned libel.
I’m assuming the author is not a complete dumbass and doesn’t want to be caught. Probably understands tracking writing style or the canary trap. More than likely tossing in a few monkey wrenches like “lodestar” just to fuck with the system. The quotation about changing mind for one minute to the next, is probably paraphrased and likely to be a common venting point among everyone in the WH to make attributing it to a single conversation mighty difficult.
One talking head posited a speech writer wrote the letter. It makes sense not to use your own words if you want to remain anonymous, and it gives you a layer of deniability.
Some have theorized that the use of the somewhat uncommon word “lodestar” points to Pence, who used the same word in a speech. (Pence quickly denied it.)
The BBC analyzed the oped with some analysis software, and concluded it certainly reads like Pence. Apparently his writing style is fairly distinctive, ‘lodestar’ or not. Of course, it could be someone who worked that out and tried to write like Pence in an attempt to throw people off the track.
I am 100% convinced it is genuine. If it isn’t it will come out and the Times will have lost pretty much all its credibility. What’s in it for them? A few warhols of fame, followed by down the tubes? Absurd.
As for who dunnit, I expect that will eventually come out. Although Deep Throat stayed secret for a long long time. But only one other person knew who he was. As noted above, whoever told the writer that quoted phrase that the sour orange changed his mind incessantly obviously knows, as do several top people of the Times. As for text analysis, were to do something like this, I would ask my wife to rewrite it in her style. That textual analysis exists is not exactly a secret.
Assuming that what the Times said about the writer is accurate it cannot be Pence because Pence cannot be fired.
OK, OK. It was me. I knew someone would figure it out eventually.
Regards,
Anonymous
I have zero doubt the piece is real, but wonder how broadly the NYT defines “senior official” - I mean, I doubt it’s Pence or Mattis or the like, and am wondering if it’s someone a rung or two down the ladder none of us have ever heard of.
It is Pence who has the most to gain.
I spent many years as a speechwriter/ghostwriter. It was my job to write in someone else’s voice.
Don’t look for the senior advisor who sounds like the op-ed, look for the one who’s the most facile with words.
Let’s not forget that the Times may have assisted the writer in editing / rewriting their anonymous op-ed specifically to throw off people and better maintain their anonymity.
I think it’s Trump himself. He has done crap like this before. Calling reporters and saying he’s someone else.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Anonymous is more than one person.
I’ve been thinking about why anyone would divulge the practice of steal-and-distract since it’d probably endanger the practice. I can only conclude that it isn’t a fail-safe tactic, and the author thought the country should know how dangerous Trump is.
The “lodestar” usage is interesting but only a fool would say that the appearance of this unusual word, coupled with Pence’s documentable fondness of it, definitively points to Pence as author. Two theories have been floated here:
While I wouldn’t totally discount either theory (particularly the second), I’d like to add a third:
Frankly, I’m betting on option #3. Maybe I’m weird, but this sort of thing happens to me fairly often. Example: recently I listened to an artist explain that he believes people should be “seduced” by art. This terminology struck me as, well … striking … and I found that a week or so afterward, when I was talking to people about the music group I’m trying to put together, I mentioned how “seductive” the music was.