Patterico's Pontifications


John Kerry’s Supporters

Filed under: General — AMac @ 11:11 am

They might not all be terrorists, but some of them certainly are communists, and I’m not referring to the laughable people with a battered card table at your local university.

A Quiz, Plus Some Bonus Shameless LAT Lies and Spinning

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 12:32 am

Quiz time. Oh — and after the quiz, there will be a couple of examples of lies and spinning in this morning’s L.A. Times. So make sure to keep reading once the quiz is done.

Here is an article from the L.A. Times about the presidential campaign. I have removed the names of the candidates. Question: based simply on the rhetoric of the article, which candidate is Candidate A, and which is Candidate B?

Because it would be unfair to use any knowledge of which candidate has given what sort of speech where, I have removed all references to specifics regarding the location or topic of the speech. This is a timeless quiz. I just want you to look at the rhetoric used by the reporters:

In his most blistering attack yet on his opponent . . . [Candidate A] on Monday unleashed a lengthy critique of [Candidate B’s position on a particular issue]

. . . .

In a speech that lasted nearly an hour and referred repeatedly to [an issue], [Candidate A] used selective citations of [Candidate B’s] comments and [his] record . . .

. . . .

[Candidate A] began his campaigning . . . . with a speech that aides advertised as a major address on [a particular topic]. It turned out to be a point-by-point attack on his rival.

. . . .

Aides said [Candidate B] would fight back vigorously against the latest assault . . .

To make it even more fun, an earlier version of the article contained these quotes:

[Candidate A] made several questionable assertions . . .

. . . .

The charge was based largely on selective citations of [Candidate B]’s comments and [record] and appeared to signal a “no-holds-barred” approach to the campaign’s final stage.

In a diatribe that lasted nearly an hour . . .

A “diatribe”! Bias doesn’t get much clearer than that! Too bad that word, as well as the “no-holds-barred” language, was edited out of the final version. These words and phrases would have provided readers tell-tale signs of the reporter’s hidden biases. (See the postscript below for more details on the earlier version of the article.)

Okay, we’ll stop there. Who is Candidate A, and who is Candidate B?

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1861 secs.