Revealing that someone uses distract-and-steal would make it less effective if the person it’s done to can learn from his mistakes, remember lessons learned and change his habits.
I wonder if someone close to him has found a way to jiu jitsu his personality flaws to steer him where they want with some reliability. Like the sandworm in dune, the mastery of the Id. I remember reading that he would humiliatingly shoot down attempted contributions from staffers and members of his family. You’d think they would have learned that instead of trying to come off well to him by proposing: “We should increase tariffs by 20%” they would say something along the lines of: “All of us were blown away last week when you had the tremendous idea to increase tariffs by 20%. It’ll show China and Canada that we won’t be taken advantage of anymore and it’ll put real Americans back to work. It’ll be remembered as the shrewdest move of your presidency.” Would he really remember what he said last week? Would he have any inclination to disagree, given that the rest of the message makes him look good and is put in terms his gut gets? Would anyone else remember what he said or want to risk looking like they disagree with what he said?
I used to be an editor for a text-based game. We had a couple of cases of writers who got “fired” and socked back. I recognized them in the first paragraph; the other editors spent months telling me I was imagining it. There’s people out there who are being paid for novels where their descriptions of people sound as if they’ve never left fourth grade. And a good writer can mimic somebody else’s style (the more marked this style, the easier it is to imitate); if the person who wrote that Op-Ed is a WH writer himself, he can even insert specific “tells” in the stuff he writes for certain people and then use the same in his anonymous work.
Given that what most of these guys have written is actually written by speechwriters / ghost writers, wouldn’t it be hard to match? I can’t believe that whoever wrote this would be taking a speechwriter into his confidence - or do it at work.
I would be astonished if whomever it is had a speechwriter go over it. This is Washington in the Trump era. It’s the very secret of Ben Franklin’s “Three can keep a secret, if two are dead” routine. I’d be more likely to believe that the writer had help at the NYT in pushing it into final shape.
I commented in another thread, I think the intended audience is Congress. It’s an attempt to push them to take some action.
In his eulogy of McCain, Henry Kissenger used the word “lodestar”, which is a more recent and topical usage than Pence’s writings. It makes much more sense that the author was either purposely or unconsciously repeating the phrase with reference to McCain, instead of thinking this was Pence or some calculated attempt to cast suspicion on the wrong person. It’s easy to search Pence’s writings now for the term, but it’s not like Pence was known for using it before all this happened.
Although it was presented as a direct quote, I doubt that the conversation was recorded and quoted accurately. Even if it is completely accurate, it is generic enough that anybody could have said it to anybody.
He could certainly be sympathetic to such a cause; we do have clues that he has been frustrated. But I don’t think he would be stupid enough to publish an anonymous rant.
There are hundreds of “senior officials” on the WH staff. I don’t know why everyone is talking about cabinet secretaries and other staff reporting directly to the president. And with that many potential suspects I don’t think you would get enough samples of a similar type of document that would be input for writing analysis. I mean, you can look at wonky policy analyses but are you going to say, “You must provide an example of an op-ed you have written”?
I predict that a new SDMB user will appear within a week with the username Lodestar.
Wow, the guy must be really stupid then. “Congress” will take action if the Democrats are in control, at which point they don’t need Anonymous to be telling them anything.
OK, so in real life I’m a Shakespeare professor, and early modern drama is a field where stylometric analysis is used pretty often (we have tons of anonymous plays, collaborative plays, and plays that seem to have been touched up by someone other than the primary author). I don’t claim to be an expert, but I do know a bit about how it works and what sorts of texts are likely to be harder or easier.
First of all, the longer the text the easier it is, and this one is relatively short. It’s certainly not too short to be a workable candidate for this type of analysis – you can, for instance, use stylometry to figure out that one speech in a play is likely to have been written by someone different than the author of the rest of the play, and come up with some likely guesses about the identity of the author – but it does get harder.
Secondly, it also gets more challenging with texts where there’s likely to have been some retouching or collaboration at the sentence-editing level (not just “you write this scene and I’ll write that one”). Since it’s likely that the NYT editor would have done some work on this column, that would make it harder to draw firm conclusions.
Thirdly, you do need to analyze a fairly big corpus of work that’s known to be by a particular writer in order to reliably identify other texts by that writer. This might be doable for most of our likely candidates, but it hasn’t been done yet.
Finally, don’t get hung up too much on individual words or phrases. People’s vocabularies are malleable, and they have a tendency to echo words they’ve recently heard from other people without knowing they’re doing it. I agree with TroutMan’s analysis here:
What tends to be more permanent, and more specific to an individual, are idiosyncratic features of grammar and rhetoric. Shakespeare, for example, liked to verb nouns. He also had a tendency – especially late in his career – to use lots and lots of enjambment. Neither of these features is unique to Shakespeare’s writing, but he used them both a lot more often than his contemporaries did. It’s quite possible that our anonymous op-ed writer has some similar verbal tics which will eventually get noticed. To find them, you’ll probably want to pay attention to the rhythms and cadences of his writing, not just specific words.
I said something similar in one of the other threads. It wouldn’t surprise me if it’s someone deputy secretary or lower, but still properly described as senior staff. These guessing threads remind me of the old joke:
A man is on his hands and knees searching near a lamppost. As another approaches he asks “Could you help me look? I lost my wedding ring.” The second man gets down to help and asks “do you know about where it fell?”. First man says “yeah, over in that alley”. “So why are we searching here?” asks the second. He answers “Because it’s too dark over there, I’ll never find anything”.
“The Op-Ed uses the word lodestar. Only a great fool would use a word from one of his speeches, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of Pence”.
I wasn’t trying to imply the op-ed was ghostwritten. Rather that - unlike fingerprints - a person can change their style of writing to make it sound like someone else.
I didn’t think you were. I was saying that it might be hard to identify the true voice of the writer, since we see someone else’s voice usually.
None of the potential writers are Winston Churchill, that’s for damn sure.
I’ve written some talks for bosses, only a couple, and I appreciate the skill that speechwriting requires. I’ve also read a lot of William Safire.
