Did The New York Times really need to lead its page one with a two-column, three-line headline about a pedestrian State of the Union speech?
I doubt it, but apparently the Times was inspired. One thing’s for sure, though: The headline is terrible:
Obama Proposing Bipartisan Effort To Win the Future
“Win the future” was the theme of Obama’s speech (which he ripped off Newt Gingrich, of all people). It’s bad enough that the he used a seriously lame phrase like that. It’s worse that the Times amplified the president’s banal PR in its headline—especially without putting it in quotes.
“Win the Future” ain’t exactly an “Axis of Evil” moment. It would have been just fine if the body of the story even had left it unmentioned.
The subhed is poor, too:
‘We Need To Out-Innovate, Out-Educate, And Out-Build The Rest Of The World’
Well, yeah—no shit.
Why pull that meaningless quote into a subhed? I reckon I’ve heard a variation on the same thing in every State of the Union of the last twenty years.
Then there’s the lede, which might as well have been written by the White House itself:
President Obama challenged Americans on Tuesday night to unleash their creative spirit, set aside their partisan differences and come together around a common goal of outcompeting other nations in a rapidly shifting global economy.
“Unleash their creative spirit,” “set aside their partisan differences,” and “come together around a common goal of outcompeting”? Get outta here.
The NYT would have been better off scrapping the first paragraph and leading with the second, although these programs sound an awful lot like the usual poll-tested SOTU chestnuts. Switchgrass, anyone?
In a State of the Union address to a newly divided Congress, Mr. Obama outlined what he called a plan to “win the future” — a blueprint for spending in critical areas like education, high-speed rail, clean-energy technology and high-speed Internet to help the United States weather the unsettling impact of globalization and the challenge from emerging powers like China and India.
At the same time Obama’s proposing new spending programs, he’s calling for a five-year freeze on discretionary spending. How does that work? We’re not told and the discrepancy isn’t even pointed out.
The Wall Street Journal talked to Columbia economist Jeffrey Sachs about that in a nice blog post this morning:
Unless the Obama administration can find ways to fund new projects “without any money,” Mr. Sachs says, the best it can hope for if it intends to cap discretionary spending is to prevent cuts in the areas it promises to emphasize.
Not that the paper’s A1 headline was much better than the NYT’s:
Obama: U.S. Must Compete
Though the Journal’s story, naturally, is a bit less rapturous than the Times’s (emphasis mine):
By 2035, he said 80% of America’s electricity should come from clean energy sources. Within 25 years, 80% of Americans should have access to high-speed rail. Within five years, communications businesses should be able to deploy high-speed wireless to 98% of all Americans. He did little to explain how those goals would be reached beyond pledges to boost federal spending on infrastructure and basic research.
Much of what the president called for to boost the nation’s competitiveness are items he has pushed for two years. Many of them—such as investments in high-speed rail, expanded Internet access and more infrastructure spending—were central to his stimulus plan of 2009.
The Times finally gets to this point down in the eighteenth paragraph (emphasis mine):
The speech was light on new policy proposals, reflecting both political and fiscal restraints on the administration after two years in which it achieved substantial legislative victories but lost the midterm elections, failed to bring the unemployment rate below 9 percent and watched the budget deficit rise sharply…
He did not lay out any specific plans for addressing the long-term costs of Social Security and Medicare, the biggest fiscal challenges ahead. He backed an overhaul of corporate taxes but spoke only in passing about the need to simplify the tax code for individuals. He called for legislation to address illegal immigration but provided no details.
Ryan, I implore you. Please comment on Politifact's "fact-check" this morning.
President Obama said "We are living with a legacy of deficit-spending that began almost a decade ago."
That got a Half True because "[T]he nation's debt did not begin under President Bush." They go on to talk about the debt, not the deficit. Get that? They acknowledge that there was a surplus -- no deficit spending -- under Clinton. They say "Obama is correct that there was a turning point toward deficit spending a decade ago. But he isn't telling the full story of the nation's deficits, a "legacy" that began long before George W. Bush was president. We rate the claim Half True." Fair enough.
Now let's go to Ryan. Ryan says "The debt will soon eclipse our entire economy."
I mean, that's an overblown statement, yet they rate that a full "True."
Why? Well, to explain, they must go to an "alternative" measure of debt called the "public debt." What is most commonly used and recognized is the "gross federal debt." So they cherry-pick a little-used measure of debt. They quote some economist from the Heritage Foundation and then say "By the end of 2010, public debt is projected to be 60.3 percent of GDP, and by the end of 2012, it's projected to be 66.6 percent. If current practices aren’t changed, public debt will reach 90 percent of GDP in 2020." they conclude by saying "We'll also note that these numbers could change over the course of the next two years, depending on economic conditions and policy choices. Still, we considered Boehner's statistics valid, and Ryan's formulation is equally solid. So we rate his statement True."
What are your thoughts on this, Mr. Chittum? Is Ryan's claim the full, solid Truth? Is the debt going to soon eclipse our entire economy? Should we, um, worry about this?
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 26 Jan 2011 at 12:11 PM
The acronym for Win the Future is, of course, WTF. Not very feliciitous.
#2 Posted by Diane, CJR on Wed 26 Jan 2011 at 12:52 PM
It might be an interesting subject, word-shuffling at The New York Times. One's eyes "glaze" over. It is as if The New York Times's "style board" has decided to save on memory, thinking, and composition by dumping "bipartisan," "win the future," "out-educate" and its other limited vocabulary of barbarisms into a cardboard box, beside which we see the paint-by-numbers assembly kit.
I thought the cardboard box process was real when I gaped at The NYT website last night. What atrocious writing. Of course, that has nothing to do with the debased practices at The New York Times Book Review. Tanenhaus, you are just too substandard to continue. Need we mention that The New York Times, as the national paper of record, is the custodian of America's shuffling and inept education system? Are there any education analysts at The New York Times?
If there were, they would have the goods. We have the books that would allow us to produce a far better national education system than would have been possible in the 1950s. If Tanenhaus had the mind for it, he would urgently have his book review drones penetrate Baddeley's (2009) and Schwartz's (2011) textbooks on memory.
Normally, in Canadian universities, these would be third-year texts, when any intelligent grade ten student can assimilate them. If the editors of The New York Times could understand it--that the assembly-line system of American education is as obsolete as the metaphors in Obama's speech--the paper could help develop a realistic curriculum for high schools.
The most effective books for memory training are Shakespeare's major plays--on Macbeth, Lear, Othello, and Hamlet. Has The Times recommended that there be a national recursive Shakespeare program for grades nine to twelve? It seems to be totally beyond the understanding of the paper's editors. We have good introductory texts for the four plays--the Oxford School Shakespeare--an advanced "Othello" (Oxford World's Classics), and an advanced "Hamlet" (Arden), a useful Norton Critical Edition "King Lear," and a practical Oxford World's Classics "Macbeth."
Is it possible that not a single teacher in America knows how to teach these plays? In September in grade nine, to get federal funding, schools should have to teach the School Shakespeare "Macbeth," and in January the mature "Macbeth" text, following through with both "Othello" texts in grade ten, both "King Lear" texts in grade eleven, and both "Hamlet" texts in grade twelve. The teachers would be required to read through the plays carefully out loud with the students and focus minutely on the critical introductions and essays.
The New York Times is incapable of writing a comprehensive analysis of the pathologies of Shakespeare teaching in America. The paper is incapable of determining how Shakespeare will enhance memory, if and only if students have the grounding in Baddeley and Schwartz, and pursue this recursive drama program.
The New York Times treats language with contempt. If the paper's editors respected writing for the Internet, they would get rid of S. Fish, one of the worst academic mutterers. His paragraphing is disgraceful. He is one of the weakest models for young students. If The New York Times had any linguistic respect for itself, it would declare the COBUILD English Grammar official for its operations, and recommend it to the schools. Similarly, America needs to choose an official dictionary for the schools: I suggest the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 5th edition, with help from www.m-w.com, especially for spoken pronunciations. We might note the failure of Zimmer's NYT "On Language" to focus these issues.
Cjr.org should declare the COBUILD grammar and a good corpus dictionary official for its site. It is foolish that American judges make language-based rulings when they clearly do not get what the corpus revolution in linguistics means. Has The New York Times analyzed the English
#3 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Wed 26 Jan 2011 at 02:15 PM
Ryan, I may sharply disagree with you on the role of govt, but I admire your fiery passion here, and strongly agree on journalistic principle.
Diane, how dare you make me choke on my coffee like that!
#4 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 26 Jan 2011 at 02:29 PM
The definitive video analysis is at LanguageLoggingHeads: SOTU edition (or see:) http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/33839?in=00:00&out=35:57 --by John McWhorter and Benjamin Zimmer.
36 minutes of the dullest TV in history. I would rather have watched a test pattern. A good one will keep me absorbed for hours.
However, some may find a few of the comments useful. We do big things. I guess you have to speak to what you think the audience level must be. Unless speech writers are hard to find in Washington.
Has US political discourse (and expert commentary) fallen this low?
#5 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Wed 26 Jan 2011 at 08:58 PM
The pathetic irony here is the evening's major sponsor of SOTUS on CNN - announced immediately following Mr. Ryan's response was Lendingtree.com!
Out of the hundreds, possibly thousand potential sponsors to follow directly after passionate words about overspending and the need to cut, cut, cut, the proud sponsor is a lender.
Like a dope pusher sponsoring and addict's stay in rehab to keep them just healthy enough to be a customer again upon exit!
#6 Posted by Mary Anne Glynn, CJR on Sun 30 Jan 2011 at 07:02 PM