The Voice Of Reason Replaces The Paper Of Record
That’s the way I feel when I read the Washington Post, anyway; today, it, too, comes out essentially against the Bush plan, but in such a more intelligent, far less strident manner than the NY Times. To wit:
Mr. Bush decided against the consensus strategy favored by the Iraq Study Group because he believed it would not prevent sectarian war from escalating. That may be right. But the president’s policy poses a different danger: that Iraqi troops and Iraqi leaders won’t deliver on the steps expected of them during what must be a relatively short time, even as American soldiers fight to secure Baghdad — and, almost certainly, die in larger numbers than before. It also means launching a mission that — until now, at least — has not had the domestic support that should accompany the commitment of troops to battle.
If the United States is not to abandon Iraq to its enemies, the U.S. mission needs to be sustainable, in both military and political terms, over the years it may take Iraqis to stabilize their country. Mr. Bush is betting that a boost in U.S. troops and aid can accelerate that process. If he is wrong, a continued American presence in Iraq may become untenable. The president must do more to persuade the country that the sacrifice he is asking of American soldiers is necessary. And if Iraqis do not deliver on their own commitments in the coming weeks, he must reconsider his strategy — and suspend the U.S. reinforcements.
Notice how the Post acknowledges the proposals and engages them instead of merely lashing out spitefully at straw men; what a marvelous concept!
But again with the “Mr. Bush”! Ahh, damn…am I that a big of an ol’ fuddy-duddy, or does that strike anyone else as a disrespectful way of addressing our nation’s leader?…
The “Mr.” has been Times house style from time immemorial, and they’re notoriously dogmatic about it. Meat Loaf was once referred to as “Mr. Loaf” on second reference in a review of his Shakespeare in the Park performance (and Syd Vicious was allegedly dubbed “Mr. Vicious,” but that may be apocryphal).
Geraldine Ferraro insisted on being called Ms. Ferraro, but the Times stubbornly called her Mrs. Editors switched to Miss after she complained she was divorced from Mr. F. William Safire took up her cause, and for spite the editors put a box in his column dismissing “Ms.” as “business-letter coinage” that is “too contrived for news writing.” Later, exec. editor Abe Rosenthal announced the issue was under study, and with all the pomp and circumstance of the Second Vatican Council announced that Ms. was deemed okey dokey.
I vaguely remember the reason for all this having to do with the arcane peculiarities of 19th century New York society life and the Times’ efforts to set itself apart from Yellow penny press. “Mr.” was supposedly a sign of greatest respect. But it was also small ‘d’ democratic, and applied to the butcher as well as the barister. This sets us apart from those dirty limeys and their snooty royalist castes, see.
There was a pre-Watergate crisis of presidential honorifics when Spiro Agnew pleaded no contest to bribery and the Times uncerimoniously dropped his Mr. (gasp), which the Times denies to convicts. But the hue and cry was so great among the hoi polloi that Rosenthal stepped in and granted him a pardon.
Great stuff, thanks for sharing…
Actually the story about Geraldine Ferrero is this. She wanted to be Mrs. Ferraro because she was married to Mr. Zaccaro, but used her maiden name. They NYT hadn’t adopted the use of Ms. so they were styling her Miss Ferraro. When she complained, they shot back a with a nasty letter stating that she could be “Mrs. Zaccaro or Miss Ferraro, but Mrs. Ferraro was a person she was not. Mrs. Ferraro was, in fact, her mother.” I think it was shortly after this that they finally decided to use Ms. for women.
You do have to give them credit for never referring to people simply by last name – they always use a title.
More good stuff, thanks for the info…
I dont care who you are. Address people properly. If you dont then your either being purposfully rude or your just not bright enough. Im not sure which applies more to the Times.