Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Talking Point Memo Hits a Nerve!
Those of you who've read my blog (all three of you!) know one of my pet peeves is the WSJ editorial page.
Today, Matt Yglesias subbing for Josh Marshal issued a WSJ challenge , asking for a reader with access to WSJ archieves to find an op-ed that contradicted an assertion in a radio interview today.
And a reader found it.
You can read about the particulars at Talking Points Memo.
I think this WSJ challenge thing is a good idea for practically every political op-ed the WSJ writes, because the WSJ editors are so sloppy with their rhetorical flourish, and has such a long history, that practically everything they write contradicts something else they wrote long ago. The contradiction often takes the form of rhetorical embellishment that sounds really convincing if you just read a single op-ed and you don't have the resources to critically examine it.
I don't have the archives, so I can't be a historical reference. But, go Matt!
Today, Matt Yglesias subbing for Josh Marshal issued a WSJ challenge , asking for a reader with access to WSJ archieves to find an op-ed that contradicted an assertion in a radio interview today.
And a reader found it.
You can read about the particulars at Talking Points Memo.
I think this WSJ challenge thing is a good idea for practically every political op-ed the WSJ writes, because the WSJ editors are so sloppy with their rhetorical flourish, and has such a long history, that practically everything they write contradicts something else they wrote long ago. The contradiction often takes the form of rhetorical embellishment that sounds really convincing if you just read a single op-ed and you don't have the resources to critically examine it.
I don't have the archives, so I can't be a historical reference. But, go Matt!
