By proxy. I'm immersed right now in non- (or extra-)blog work, but the Cunctator—who has an agenda, since he doesn't want Reading A1 to give up entirely on the Times-watch modus—is graciously stepping in to give us the word on a turnabout piece from our old pal Ad Nags. Many thanks from me. The next voice you hear will be his:

Man bites dog! Adam "Some Democrats Worry" Nagourney has written another of his by-the-numbers dissension-in-the-ranks hit pieces in today's New York Times. For the first time the target of his negative framing is the GOP, infighting over Terri Schiavo. (Essay question: Nagourney frames the participants as "conservatives" as opposed to "Republicans." What are the reasons and implications? Discuss.)

Nagourney has written any number of Democrats-are-flailing pieces, but never before about the Republicans. Does this represent a sea change for Nagourney? For the New York Times Washington bureau? Or has Karl Rove lost his ability to control the GOP message as Bush becomes a lame-duck president and the positioning for the 2008 GOP presidential ticket begins? After all, Nagourney is one of the kingmakers.

Whatever the case, it's interesting seeing the Nags turned on the GOP, with his infamous "some are worried" constructions:

The vote by Congress to allow the federal courts to take over the Terri Schiavo case has created distress among some conservatives who say that lawmakers violated a cornerstone of conservative philosophy by intervening in the ruling of a state court. . . . Some more moderate Republicans are also uneasy. . . .

In interviews over the past two days, conservatives who expressed concern about the turn of events in Congress stopped short of condemning the vote in which overwhelming majorities supported the Schiavo bill, and they generally applauded the goal of trying to keep Ms. Schiavo alive.

It's personally entertaining when it's the other side exposed to Nags's sloppy writing, but that's no real defense for the method. The sad thing is that Nagourney could be saved if once, just once, an editor cut out the generalizations. But that's not ever going to happen, is it?

The Cunctator

posted by michael  1:51:30 PM  
tell me about it []