What a Difference a Word Makes
Yesterday’s L.A. Times story on Tuesday’s election had this passage:
Speaking in soft, even tones — possibly to spare her strained vocal cords — Clinton acknowledged Tuesday night that the results were far from decisive. “I want to congratulate Sen. Obama for his victory tonight, and I look forward to continuing our campaign and our debates about how to leave this country better off for the next generation,” Clinton told an ebullient crowd packed into a ballroom in Midtown Manhattan.
Wow. She congratulated Obama on his “victory”? That sounds like a concession that Obama won the day.
Except that I happened to hear her quote on the radio yesterday. She said: “I want to congratulate Sen. Obama for his victories tonight.” In other words: he had victories, and so did I.
Just one word was wrong — but the meaning is very, very different.
Sloppy reporting, or deliberate slanting?
LarryD (feb78b) — 2/7/2008 @ 8:20 amIt sounds like Hillary’s too conservative for them. Can someone bring Angela Davis out of her foxhole? Someone who embodies both curio points of this election – and a voice the LAT could get behind.
Vermont Neighbor (c6313b) — 2/7/2008 @ 8:29 amThe plural is less than the singular in this instance so they figure that it would be too difficult to straighten out their sleight.
The measure of journalistic greatness is adeptness at sophistry, ability to effectively deceive simple folk.
j curtis (5d5cd7) — 2/7/2008 @ 9:56 amHoly crud, Romney just bowed out!
G (722480) — 2/7/2008 @ 10:29 amThat’s why they have editors and fact-checkers at the LA Times, to prevent the mistakes that are oh so typical of those crab-grass bloggers.
aunursa (1b5bad) — 2/7/2008 @ 11:44 amIndeed. Otto von Bismarck started the Franco-Prussian War that brought down the Second French Empire by altering a few words in the famous Ems Dispatch of 1870.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/8/2008 @ 5:26 am