Hunkered down

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Mon Apr 14, 2003 5:32 am

The past 25 days have been among the most stressful, emotional and turbulent of the second Bush White House ... (New York Times)*** ... what with the constant rain of Iraqi missiles over Washington and the full-court press of invading Republican Guard troops. ***[ April 14, 2003: Message edited by: blanp ]

ToddJBehme · **Posted:** Mon Apr 14, 2003 6:23 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
The past 25 days have been among the most stressful, emotional and turbulent of the second Bush White House ... (New York Times)*** ... what with the constant rain of Iraqi missiles over Washington and the full-court press of invading Republican Guard troops. ***<hr></blockquote>Why do you sound so dismissive?[ April 14, 2003: Message edited by: Todd J. Behme ]

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Mon Apr 14, 2003 8:03 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Todd J. Behme:
Why do you sound so dismissive?[ April 14, 2003: Message edited by: Todd J. Behme ]<hr></blockquote>"LOL"

ToddJBehme · **Posted:** Mon Apr 14, 2003 9:09 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
"LOL"<hr></blockquote>Maybe you're right, but I'm willing to believe there's a lot of stress in the White House. I think you could argue that the decision process to send people into war and then to be responsible for what happens is more stressful than being in the war.[ April 14, 2003: Message edited by: Todd J. Behme ]

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Mon Apr 14, 2003 12:35 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Todd J. Behme:
Maybe you're right, but I'm willing to believe there's a lot of stress in the White House. I think you could argue that the decision process to send people into war and then to be responsible for what happens is more stressful than being in the war.[ April 14, 2003: Message edited by: Todd J. Behme ]<hr></blockquote>You could argue that, but you'd be wrong.

ToddJBehme · **Posted:** Mon Apr 14, 2003 2:54 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
You could argue that, but you'd be wrong.<hr></blockquote>Why are you so sure? Have you interviewed people in the White House and troops in the field and made that determination?

tommangan · **Posted:** Mon Apr 14, 2003 4:34 pm

For God's sake, man, it's idiocy to argue that the Oval Office is anything like being under fire with one's comrades getting their arms and legs shot off, when death could come at any moment and the prevailing emotion is crap-your-pants terror followed by blinding rage for revenge.

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Mon Apr 14, 2003 5:38 pm

maybe the boys in washington are afraid that god's watching and that they're all going to hell.

ToddJBehme · **Posted:** Mon Apr 14, 2003 6:20 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by tom mangan:
For God's sake, man, it's idiocy to argue that the Oval Office is anything like being under fire with one's comrades getting their arms and legs shot off, when death could come at any moment and the prevailing emotion is crap-your-pants terror followed by blinding rage for revenge.<hr></blockquote>I'm not suggesting that White House stress tops that of the soldiers; I'm simply curious about how copy editors, who are neither White House reporters nor in Iraq with soldiers, can be so sure. As a copy editor I always try to remember that I wasn't there. I don't automatically consider my judgment better than the reporter's. I suppose saying that could get me excommunicated from this forum.[ April 14, 2003: Message edited by: Todd J. Behme ]

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Mon Apr 14, 2003 6:24 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Todd J. Behme:
As a copy editor I always try to remember that I wasn't there. I don't automatically consider my judgment better than the reporter's. I suppose saying that could get me excommunicated from this forum.<hr></blockquote>In cases like this, where the suggested comparison is so clearly absurd, any good editor would question it. To point out how stressed the White House is under the circumstances is at least in bad taste.[ April 14, 2003: Message edited by: blanp ]

ToddJBehme · **Posted:** Mon Apr 14, 2003 6:38 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
In cases like this, where the suggested comparison is so clearly absurd, any good editor would question it. To point out how stressed the White House is under the circumstances is at least in bad taste.[ April 14, 2003: Message edited by: blanp ]<hr></blockquote>But I don't see a "suggested comparison" to troops in the story. I skimmed it quickly and incompletely, so maybe I missed something, and I suppose a reader could infer that comparison, but I don't see the story saying that the stress is equal to or greater than that of the troops. It seems to be comparing the past several weeks in the White House to the previous however many weeks of Bush's term. It says "The past 25 days have been among the most stressful, emotional and turbulent of the second Bush White House ...." I'm willing to trust the judgment of three Times reporters and whoever edited the story to say that.[ April 14, 2003: Message edited by: Todd J. Behme ][ April 14, 2003: Message edited by: Todd J. Behme ]

tommangan · **Posted:** Mon Apr 14, 2003 8:31 pm

Saying "The last 25 days" implicitly compares their stress to that of the people under fire because it's a direct reference to the war. What blanp is saying is, in effect, "oh, please, let 'em sweat out a couple firefights if they want to know what stress and turbulence are."The reporter seems to be trying to gin up sympathy for the poor blighters in the war room, which seems absurd to anybody who can hold up the apple of the Oval Office and compare it to the orange of young Americans being blown to bits.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Mon Apr 14, 2003 9:40 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by tom mangan:

The reporter seems to be trying to gin up sympathy for the poor blighters in the war room, which seems absurd to anybody who can hold up the apple of the Oval Office and compare it to the orange of young Americans being blown to bits.<hr></blockquote>Or Iraqis, for that matter.

Powderhorn · **Posted:** Tue Apr 15, 2003 2:13 am

I'm concerned this may turn unbiased any moment. Why should we care about Iraqis? I mean, the AP certainly hasn't given me any bios on the dead Iraqis.

KfitzR · **Posted:** Tue Apr 15, 2003 8:32 am

Why care about dead Iraqis? They are fellow human beings.

Hawkeye · **Posted:** Tue Apr 15, 2003 1:22 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Pete Hahnloser:
Why should we care about Iraqis? I mean, the AP certainly hasn't given me any bios on the dead Iraqis.<hr></blockquote>Why care about a dead American you've never met?

Hawkeye · **Posted:** Tue Apr 15, 2003 1:23 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Hawkeye:
Why care about a dead American you've never met?<hr></blockquote>
I'll answer myself. Because they're human.[ April 15, 2003: Message edited by: Hawkeye ]

rumymommy · **Joined:** Tue Aug 06, 2002 12:01 am **Posts:** 138

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Todd J. Behme:
I'm simply curious about how copy editors, who are neither White House reporters nor in Iraq with soldiers, can be so sure.
<hr></blockquote>
No. 1: Was it attributed? It didn't seem like it.No. 2: Covering a beat doesn't qualify you to write abstract observations. Would you have let it go if it said "The past 25 days have been a breeze for the White House," because the reporter was on location?No. 3: Cutting it doesn't hurt the story, as readers can make up their own minds about the stress of the situation based on the facts presented.

ToddJBehme · **Posted:** Tue Apr 15, 2003 9:19 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by 4Jfan:

No. 1: Was it attributed? It didn't seem like it.No. 2: Covering a beat doesn't qualify you to write abstract observations. Would you have let it go if it said "The past 25 days have been a breeze for the White House," because the reporter was on location?No. 3: Cutting it doesn't hurt the story, as readers can make up their own minds about the stress of the situation based on the facts presented.<hr></blockquote>Those are good points. Let me take a shot.1. Is attribution necessary? I don't see an "Analysis" tag on the online version of the story, but I'd say a piece like that needs to allow the reporters to make those kinds of judgments. And they might be making that judgment with the help of sources who don't even want to be mentioned as anonymous sources.2. If the reporter(s) had observed that everyone on the White House was relaxed and high-fiving each other and all smiles, and combined that with material from sources saying it's been a relaxed no-sweat in the White House, then maybe I'd indeed be OK with such a characterization. I will admit, though, that your example does seem harder to swallow than letting them say it's stressful in the White House. I'm not sure why.3. Cutting is certainly an option. Without the observation the readers may indeed be able to see that it's a stressful time in the White House. But I'm not at all sure they would conclude that it's among the most stressful the White House has been since Bush took office. That's the point of the observation.You may well disagree with me on these things, but I maintain that the story is not comparing White House stress to that of the troops fighting the war. I know blanp and at least one other person here disagree, but the comparison simply isn't stated in the story, nor do I see that it's implicit.[ April 15, 2003: Message edited by: Todd J. Behme ]

Testy Copy Editors

Hunkered down

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links