After Mr. Carville tried to interrupt Mr. Novak twice, Mr. Novak said: "I know you hate to hear me. But you have to."I say, it's ridiculous to report it that way. You should at least have the word with asterisks -- otherwise we're left to imagine he said something worse than "bullshit," which is, so often, the perfect word. Why there's that bestseller, "On Bullshit," written by a philosophy professor, and that Penn and Teller TV show "Bullshit!" Bullshit is pretty mainstream. With the Times's circumlocution, we might imagine Novak had called Carville a f***ing c***.
Mr. Carville interrupted again, saying of Mr. Novak, "He's got to show these right-wingers that he's got backbone."
A moment later, Mr. Carville said directly to Mr. Novak: "The Wall Street Journal editorial page is watching you. Show them you're tough."
Mr. Novak responded with a profanity, before telling Mr. Carville: "I hate that. Just let it go."
He stood up, removed his microphone and walked off.
My son -- John Althouse Cohen -- says it's like that thing in McSweeney's. What? This:
MEDIA MOMENT 37: HURRY! BLOOMBERGCHUPAFAN.COM AND BLOOMBERGBREASTISBEST.COM ARE STILL AVAILABLE
"Among the hundreds of Web addresses owned by Mr. Bloomberg... are more than a dozen with names like NoBloomberg.org and IhateBloomberg.com.... Many of these names, including some registered last week, include a slang expression of contempt, labeled vulgar in some contexts by dictionaries. The pure-minded could construe it to mean that Mr. Bloomberg has a fondness for lollipops."
— The New York Times, May 12, 2001
"An Internet site for the posting of complaints about American corporations, celebrities and political figures can continue to use a Web address that denigrates Michael R. Bloomberg, the New York City mayoral candidate, according to a ruling a week ago.... The protest site, which is run by Dan Parisi, a pornography publisher, uses many addresses created by adding to the names of companies or politicians a slang expression of contempt associated in other contexts with baby bottles."
— The New York Times, June 14, 2001
The Times needs to get back to these more scrutable circumlocutions. Or just cut out the circumlocuting altogether. I know it's their thing to show off their "fit to print" standard, but a quote's a quote.
Posts
17 comments:
One would wonder how the Times even has time to report on the rants of CNN hosts. After all they seem to be sp4nding their resources these days prying into the sealed court records of adopted children.
Maybe the Times will reveal details about the children's biological parents so that everyone knows about them before the children themselves. How wonderful!
Sloan: Don't know if you saw Brit Hume last night (the only show left on FOX worth watching. An Aruba-free zone.), but he caught the Times is a bald-faced lie about this adoption thing.
Their ombudsman claimed they only made a few inquiries about the adoption for general research purposes and it was never about getting in those records. Brit discovered they were trolling lawyers to find a legal way to do just that.
More than one lawyer. So Brit's better sourced than the liberal media ever is.
They are a reprehensible organization. But at least they can't get away with it anymore.
You know, Dirty Harry, with the way you hate the New York Times with every fiber of your soul, it's almost as if you work for them or something! Or maybe they just killed your first-born child or something...
IE: Lighten up. God.
Yes, I saw Hume last night (and I will agree with the Aruba fee comment...a matter for another discussion).
One of the commentators noted that the Times was after any evidence of "special treatment" that Roberts may have gotten in his adoptions....as if adoption is akin to organ donations.
I don't think the Times would have any qualms about blabbering private information about Robert's kids if the Times felt it would lower the image of Roberts himself. After all the Times is a partisan publication (and a quality one).
A more interesting inquiry by the Times would be why families such as Roberts seek to adopt children internationally. (of course such a story could result in conclusions that are against the "party-line" so don't expect it).
Ploopus,
"Hate?"
Oh, it's much more than that. You obviously haven't read my blog.
slate had an interesting article on novak's antics during his interview on cnn, and it sounds very similar to the james carville episode:
http://slate.com/id/2123825/
what a drama queen this guy...
Poopusgirl, I think in all fairness Harry is simply trying to be fair and balanced.
Goesh: You're incessant insistence on changing my name to 'Poopusgirl' every single time you address me is quite amusing. I'm sure there are five year olds who would find that kind of humor obnoxious by now.
Ploopus:
We agree on something!
"Goesh: You're incessant insistence on changing my name to 'Poopusgirl' every single time you address me is quite amusing."
Yes, it is.
"....it turned out he pulled in some chips and cut some corners to facilitate his adoption but nobody knew about it because the media didn't ask the right questions...."
I think you miss the point entirely on how ethically wrong investigating these adoptions are.
But here is another rationalization that is surely on the minds of liberals....
Noting that Roberts has adopted children most likely results from fertility issues that he and his wife may have suffered. Because of the number of abortions in the United States, the opportunity to adopt American children is limited, and the opportunity for "closed" adoptions is non- existent. Roberts probably learned this through his quest to adopt children and ended up seeking adoption outside the United States. As such, Roberts is probably too emotionally invloved in this issue and should recuse himself in any case involving adoption or abortion rights that could come before the Court.
We haven't heard this argument yet...but we will.
You know, Ploopusgirl, with the way you hate Ann Althouse and her readers with every fiber of your soul, it's almost as if you're out to get her or something! Or maybe she just killed your first-born child or something...
Or maybe you're just a troll. Or something.
Bloody hell. And I thought USENET trolls were pathetic.
Fun as this little flamewar is, I want to get back to the subject at hand: what if the Times' real intent is that "we might imagine Novak had called Carville a f***ing c***."
Now, funny as that is, I prefer to read the words with integrity. Novak used "a profanity," not "a compound phrase involving a gerund and a word [formerly associated with poultry/ never uttered by feminine lips prior to the 1920s]..."
But I prefer to imagine... to daydream, if you will... that Novak said,
"C'ville, you mother****ing piece of ****, your ***** *** *********** never ****ed until it took its ***** **** out of ***** and stopped ****************** its own ****." And then the Times took the prim way out.
Ooh, the last post allows me to reference an Eugene Volokh blogpost on Profanity (and obscenities), and their accepted usages in public.
Like me, interestingly enough, he doesn't mind them in fiction or in print, but doesn't go around saying them.
Unlike the rat-faced Mr. Novak.
OTOH, this little outburst allowed CNN to get a sweet little boost in the ratings, although I can't imagine it'll last, since they're hardly like to replay the incident time and again, like the other networks have.
Cheers,
Victoria
I agree that bulls*** is rather mild, even for this conservative Christian.
But how many times have we imagined that someone would finally call James Carville a "f***ing c***"!
There are people who do care and cry for the unborn. I guess your not one of them.
Hey...it's a free country.
There are also a lot of needy Asian kids, kids from the subcontinent, from the Middle East, and European kids in Russia/Eastern Europe as well.
botox:
Good call. You're right that all anti-abortionists are racists. Plus, I'm sure that all those aborted children would rather be dead than be orphans.
Hmmmm. . .
As to the Times article: Would have been funny to hear Novak say "f***ing c***" though.
Post a Comment