SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Scared Yet?

POLITICS DECEMBER 31, 2008

Scared Yet?

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

There are so many things that make The Wall Street Journal editorial page a source of personal fascination--the undying faith in voodoo economics, the staunch defense of executive privilege and disdain for independent counsels during Republican presidencies alternating with disdain for executive privilege and staunch defense of independent counsels during Democratic presidencies--but perhaps the most intriguing is the wildly promiscuous use of quotation marks. Over the years, it's become an obsession of mine.

Like most of us, the Journal uses scare quotes to signify that a term is misleading. A 2007 editorial on climate change complained that "political and media activists attempt to stigmatize anyone who doesn't pay homage to their 'scientific consensus.'" As a matter of grammar, if not as a matter of fact, this is perfectly clear: The Journal believes no scientific consensus on climate change exists. Likewise, the Journal holds that tax cuts do not reduce revenue and will unfailingly scare-quote any term that implies otherwise--i.e., "The estimated 'cost' of this fix to the Treasury over 10 years would be some $632 billion."

Watch TNR editor Franklin Foer discuss this column with TNR senior editor Jonathan Chait:

The Journal also uses the device to imply skepticism about phenomena it finds ideologically inconvenient. Thus terms like "the deficit" and "inequality, " if they must appear at all on the Journal editorial page, are constantly set off in scare quotes. ("With all the political and media chatter about 'inequality' these days ...") Is there any way to read this other than as an implication that the government's books have been balanced for years and all Americans enjoy exactly the same level of income?

Other uses of scare quotes so defy convention as to suggest a novel dialect of the English language. One editorial assailed legislation that would legalize "lower-cost 'generic' copies of biopharmaceuticals." Another complained, "we can expect a spate of 'analysis' stories purporting to tell us just how much America's top executives are making." Yet another--siding with Hank Greenberg against Eliot Spitzer--sputtered, "Mr. Spitzer's Starr 'report' claimed that Mr. Greenberg had benefitted from 'self-dealing.'"

Clearly, the Journal stands against, respectively, generic drugs, news analysis about CEO salaries, and accusations against Hank Greenberg. But the scare quotes seem to imply that the Journal further believes generic drugs are not actually "generic," news analysis is not actually "analysis," and Eliot Spitzer's report was not, in fact, a "report." (Would the Journal accept the term "dossier"? "Formal statement"? "Published finding of facts"?) As for the quotes around "self-dealing," it's not clear whether the editorial was repeating a verbatim phrase from Spitzer's report--sorry, "report"--or suggesting that "self-dealing" is a mythical activity, sort of like witchcraft, concocted by anti-corporate leftists to smear business owners.

The Journal's fixation with the scare quote is one of the great journalistic marriages between medium and grammatical device. For one thing, it perfectly suits the Journal's passion for scandal-mongering. Recently, I was perusing Whitewater, Volume VI, the last in a series of a half-dozen bound collections of Journal editorials fulminating against the Clinton administration and its multitudinous sinister plots. Scare quotes, of course, can be found throughout, decorating terms like "professionals" (the staff at the Justice Department) and "unproven" (the Filegate scandal, of which the administration was later exonerated by the independent counsel).

The scare quote is the perfect device for making an insinuation without proving it, or even necessarily making clear what you're insinuating. A mundane fact--say, Paul Gigot taking a colleague to dinner--translated into Journal editorial-ese would be rendered, "Wall Street Journal editorial page 'editor' Paul Gigot recently patronized a 'legitimate business establishment' with his 'associate.'"

And scare quotes express the page's voice in a way no other writing style could. This is especially clear when, as happens from time to time, an editorial whips itself into a frenzy of scare-quoting that can be halted only by the physical limitations of the printed newspage. Consider the following passages, all of which come from a single editorial published last month:

      "Universal" government-run health care proved
      too ambitious even for FDR, who stripped it out of
      the Social Security Act of 1935.

      These private plans would then "compete" with a new
      public insurance option, i.e., a program managed by the
      government and modeled after Medicare. Lower-income
      earners would get subsidies to make
      coverage "affordable."

      The draft doesn't include an exact cost, though
      casually notes the ballpark "investment" could run
      as high as $150 billion a year.

      As for the claim that centralizing health
      spending will lead to more "efficiency"...

      [F]ederal officials will run not only the new plan but
      also the "market" in which it "competes" with
      private programs ...

Taken as a piece of straight writing, this editorial would appear to be the expression of some kind of mental disorder. But, if you read it in the spoken voice, it's not only reasonable but a perfectly apt expression of the Journal's editorial sensibility. The page's perspective is that of the business tycoon peering down disdainfully at the peons who deign to challenge him. Imagine the above passages spoken in the voice of Potter from It's a Wonderful Life ("Why don't you go to the 'riff-raff' you love so much and ask them to let you have 'eight thousand dollars'?") or the Emperor from Return of the Jedi ("From here you will witness the final destruction of the 'Alliance' and the end of your insignificant 'rebellion'").

The scare quotes also serve as a shortcut for the inattentive reader. Imagine a busy manager, quickly skimming over an editorial. He might come across a phrase like "the deficit," and suppose it's a bad thing, or "affordable" health care, and suppose it's a good thing. The scare quotes would usefully signal the appropriate response: "Affordable" health care? Bah! The downside of this practice is that it's also a shortcut for the writers, allowing them to wallow in their ideological prejudices without spelling out their empirical premises. But maybe the Journal doesn't really consider this a "downside."

Jonathan Chait is a senior editor at The New Republic.

 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 54 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

54 comments

Hilarious and brilliant!

- Drick

December 21, 2008 at 3:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Wall Street Journal and its editorial page are like two different papers. Skipping the latter keeps my love for the former unadulterated.

- Marcy

December 24, 2008 at 11:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The 'scare quote' is much like the rhetorical question used on Fox News. It disparages, but has total deny-ability. In the case of the WSJ, they can say that they used the quotes because the word is contentious in the context (e.g. not everyone thinks the Spitzer report is a real report). For Fox, they tend to use it more to smear. So, they they can say things like: "Is the Spitzer report a big lie?" . They say that they were not saying it was a big lie, they are only asking if it was.

- PaulK

December 24, 2008 at 11:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To elaborate, Chait is right to point out that the editorial page is like some Dickensian fat cat sneering at the riff-raff who don't know their place when asking for tax hikes on the rich or universal health care. The tone of the paper on the other hand is not in the least condesceding but rather patient and polite ("please see related article..." "please turn to page" "Mr." "Ms."). The paper does an excellent job of explaining basic macro-economic and finance concepts to the uninitiated like me. And in their longer, more in-depth articles, they're sensitive about re-introducing the different characters whose names haven't appeared in recent paragraphs ("Mr. Jones, the hedge fund manager..."

- Marcy

December 24, 2008 at 12:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

These are not "scare quotes" -- they are "snark quotes", designed to ridicule the words or phrases that they contain.

- Noah Webster

December 24, 2008 at 11:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I really "enjoyed" this "article"!

- Kosak

December 27, 2008 at 1:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chaits is right on! Pointing out the effect of the use of snide punctuation marks to avoid responsibility for any thought stated makes this a delicious piece which should be reprinted in any writing manual.

- Alex Levy

January 1, 2009 at 6:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nice column - there are times when the WSJ editorial page looks (typographically, at least) like a Zagat guide published by the John Birch Society. I usually avoid the editorials, though, I can find all the right-wing nuttiness I want to read on the op-ed page. The Journal editorialists don't seem to be quite as addicted to another verbal tic of the right, the use of "so-called" - e.g., "so-called assault rifle" (a phrase used by the NRA).

- Tom

January 8, 2009 at 4:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Where do you get off, you sick little twist? Sexual? I'm not sexual with them. I'm not abusive with them, how dare you write that in your paper without knowing nothing about me, biting's not sex, it's biting! I'm not sick like that. Maybe I should come bite you, would you like that, scotty? I bet you would like that, I am right? You write about me like I'm sick. You're the sick one, you know that? Is that why you like me, scotty? Is that why? I could come bite you; you tell me how sexual it is. You humiliate me like that? You mortify me like that in front of my father? My father's father? Listen to me, smack daddy, crack daddy, little baby whack daddy, here's what's happening. You ain't never going to find them anymore. You aint never gonna see them no more. I'm sending you something right now, You take a good look at this guy, because you ain't ver going to see him no more.

- McNulty

January 9, 2009 at 12:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Taken as a piece of straight writing, this editorial would appear to be the expression of some kind of mental disorder. But, if you read it in the spoken voice, it's not only reasonable but a perfectly apt expression of the Journal's editorial sensibility. The page's perspective is that of the business tycoon peering down disdainfully at the peons who deign to challenge him. Imagine the above passages spoken in the voice of Potter from It's a Wonderful Life ("Why don't you go to the 'riff-raff' you love so much and ask them to let you have 'eight thousand dollars'?") or the Emperor from Return of the Jedi ("From here you will witness the final destruction of the 'Alliance' and the end of your insignificant 'rebellion'")." Game, set, match!!! You did it. You won! You did it Jon, you won! May your victory go somewhere far.... somewhere where we won't ever have to be "scared" by quotation marks again. Jon is the King! Jon is the Kin! Jon is the King!!!!

- dylanposer

January 13, 2009 at 2:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This really is a right-wing mental syndrome. I grew up in Bakersfield California (I know, I know, you're preching to the choir), reading the opinion page of the Bakersfield Californian. These batty right-wingers would dominate the letters to the editor, and the use of the scare quotes was totally pathalogical, to the point where it just seemed random, every fifth word or so was a quote.

- Dave

January 13, 2009 at 4:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

oh come on. the editorial page is obviously conservative, but certainly no more rabid than the editorial board of the new york times. and when it does include dissent, it at least hires someone like thomas frank instead of, well, whoever the lefty equivalent of bill kristol is. i don't see anyone here complaining about the utter obtuseness that is the editorial board of the boston globe (except kirchick). or do you agree that the globe gone the way of the washington times? as for their, ahem, "voodoo economics," they have for years been highly critical of many of the policies responsible for current economic travails, although not all. Then, neither has the imbecilic board of the Times.

- jamiet

January 13, 2009 at 7:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Before becoming the editorial page editor at the Journal, Gigot was of course a regular (Friday nights) on the News Hour, where he was a very charming fellow (even if his comments sometimes conflicted with reality as Mark Shields liked to point out). As with Jonah Goldberg and so many on the right, Gigot is pleasant enough when heard, but when his thoughts are read rather than heard come across as, well, slightly unhinged. I'm not sure about this phenomenon but maybe it explains the popularity of right wing talk radio - best heard and not read.

- raylward

January 13, 2009 at 7:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This has been going on for years in publications of varying quality and political outlook. Don't take my word for it, get on them internets and Google it. Hey, if I'm not too busy today perhaps I'll rummage through the TNR archives for a few examples...

- selish70

January 13, 2009 at 8:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Before becoming the editorial page editor at the Journal, Gigot was of course a regular (Friday nights) on the News Hour, where he was a very charming fellow (even if his comments sometimes conflicted with reality as Mark Shields liked to point out). As with Jonah Goldberg and so many on the right, Gigot is pleasant enough when heard, but when his thoughts are read rather than heard come across as, well, slightly unhinged. I'm not sure about this phenomenon but maybe it explains the popularity of right wing talk radio - best heard and not read.

- raylward

January 13, 2009 at 8:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well done! This helps explain why the WSJ editorials tend to send me into fits of epilepsy. PaulK's comment on Fox's use of the rhetorical question is interesting as well. Aren't these things frowned upon in journalism school? How are they such accepted tactics in todays politically driven media streams?

- tnfalpha

January 13, 2009 at 9:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks Jonathan. I needed a good honest laugh today.

- Paul

January 13, 2009 at 9:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As a devotee of yoga, I'm constantly reminded of conservative euphemism: "Let's relax in our lovely chair twist..." I cancelled my subscription to the WSJ a few years back because I couldn't stomach the editorial page.

- Richard Leonori

January 13, 2009 at 9:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jonathan Chait's article was a great accompaniment to my morning coffee and the perfect way to "begin" a day of "utterly useless" searching for "work." The only thing that topped it was "Tom's" "description" of a WSJ editorial as a Zagat rating as written by the still active John Birch Society. With my spirits this lifted, maybe someone will call me for the first real job interview since 2001! They do say that "attitude" is everything and it has been difficult to find anything funny about the last eight years, especially when some of those years only brought me $7,000 in wages.

- SWozniak

January 13, 2009 at 10:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why are they called scare quotes? And let me add, in defense of this grammatical device, for example if you were to write. "You (singular or plural) are..." It is quicker for me to write: Who is "you" as opposed to: who are or is the you you are referring to, and to write: Who is you? Is grammatically incorrect and: Who are you? Is not clear in context.

- blackton

January 13, 2009 at 12:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One problem with being flip or too dismissive of the WSJ editorial page is that it ignores the fact that the right wing punditry gets away with shouting LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS while ignoring these instances of glaring conservative media bias, always wrapped inside the cocoon of "opinion". Yet, time & again right wingers like O'Reilly and Limbaugh will use WSJ editorial page comments like it was a news source. It adds misleading and unproven "opinion" into the media bloodstream.

- mk3872

January 13, 2009 at 2:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A strong "whatever" to Chait's fascination with meaningless minutiae; however, the graphic accompanying the article was beautiful! The Wall Street "Journal," Market"Place". Great graphic.

- reb

January 13, 2009 at 2:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nanny staters try to scare little children into thinking we are killing cutesy little polar bears by using Edison bulbs. Yet putting quotation marks around highly disputable commentary is somehow seen as scary. Bizarre!

- e pluribus unum

January 13, 2009 at 2:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jamiet has it dead right. The Times' editorial page is much farther off center than the WSJ.

- lsernoff

January 13, 2009 at 2:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I thought I was the only one who felt that way about the WJS editorial pages.

- ccarpenter

January 13, 2009 at 2:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For goodness sake, most of the commentors here write as if they have never heard of this phenomenon before which I find difficult to believe. Any news source with a distinct political leaning (left or right) uses quotes in this way all the time. It has also been noticed and commented on extensively. (Just google "scare quotes" and you'll get a feast from all political perspectives.) Why is the WSJ being singled out in this way?

-

January 13, 2009 at 2:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For goodness sake, most of the commentors here write as if they have never heard of this phenomenon before which I find difficult to believe. Any news source with a distinct political leaning (left or right) uses quotes in this way all the time. It has also been noticed and commented on extensively. (Just google "scare quotes" and you'll get a feast from all political perspectives.) Why is the WSJ being singled out in this way?

- Winslow Theramin

January 13, 2009 at 2:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh yes; I had to finally abandon the WSJ, even though I have had my securities license for 40 years. Too racist, too sneary, and the quotes. Thank you for telling me what that technique is called..My favorite editorial was the one opining that high black teenage unemployment was due because black teens could earn more dealing drugs; my nastiest moment was Lany Guinier(sp?) being referred to by Clint Bolick as a "Quota queen"... direct link to Reagon's black "welfare queens" deliberate. Charming people..and most of them made a fortune these last 8 years. Thank you.

- Susan S. Stephens

January 13, 2009 at 3:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

nice "job"

- Mike

January 13, 2009 at 3:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Very funny essay, but JC refuses to engage the points The Page made by putting such terms in quotes: Not to scare, but to alert the reader that the terms contain dubious assumptions. As a more sympathetic reader, I'll spell some of them out. "Universal" government-run health care proved too ambitious even for FDR, who stripped it out of the Social Security Act of 1935. (Universal is in quotes because there is no liklihood that a program to create universal health insurance will ever reach all citizens.) These private plans would then "compete" with a new public insurance option, i.e., a program managed by the government and modeled after Medicare. (Compete is in quotes because it's unlikely that the rules would allow real competition. The government's rules would be stacked in favoor of the government plan.) Lower-income earners would get subsidies to make coverage "affordable." (Affordable is in quotes because subsidies probably won't lower the price enough to make low-income earners want to buy insurance.) The draft doesn't include an exact cost, though casually notes the ballpark "investment" could run as high as $150 billion a year. (Investment is in quotes because it's just spending, with no exectation of a return on investment.) And so on.

- td

January 13, 2009 at 3:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm shocked! shocked to find out the Wall Street Journal has a political agenda. wait till Murdoch really gets his hands on it. Sorry but I canceled my subscription long ago.

- Keefer

January 13, 2009 at 5:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wonder if there's any connection between right-wing "scare quotes" and the "air quotes" McCain started using toward the end of the campaign. The Daily Show later dubbed them "d@#k fingers". Hrmmm...

- anonymous

January 13, 2009 at 5:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My favorite WSJ editorial page moment happened when current editor, Paul "Gigot," described the attack on the Dade County Election Board by Tom Delay's congressional staff as a "Brooks Brother's Riot."

- Hermoine

January 13, 2009 at 6:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I disagree! The Wall Street Journal editors are consistently professional in their "writing." They have established themselves as "objective" and "independent" of Rupert Murdoch. As for Mr. Murdoch, all he wants is to present the "truth" to his viewers and "readers."

- Michael Hartley

January 13, 2009 at 7:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This reminds of the common practice by the China Daily, the national English-language paper that's operated by the Chinese government (as are all newspapers in the country). The paper has a host of words that are put in quotes throughout the newspaper, which helps it navigate through thorny political-nationalist ideology. Thus, the elected president of Taiwan is the "president."

- wyatt

January 13, 2009 at 10:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Scariest scenario: Murdoch expands his ”journalism“ in his ultimate fantasy — owning NYT.

- Chuck Suber

January 14, 2009 at 1:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Its good to see someone else call out the WSJ on its editorial policy. During the campaign, it was so relentlessly negative on Obama, furthering often false accusations, that I became disgusted with the whole organization and switched my allegiance to FT. I figure the best way to discourage WSJ is to stop funding them, which I have now done.

-

January 14, 2009 at 2:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Frequently using quotes around individual words is the publishing equivalent of saying, "... so-called [fill-in-the-blank]". It's a sleazy way for a writer to roll eyes and make air quote gestures, but in print. How unprofessional and immature.

- Liberty

January 14, 2009 at 5:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The terms "Wall Street Journal editorial" and "intellectual dishonesty" have long been interchangeable. Like "Bill Kristol" and "pathological liar."

- Robert Henry Eller

January 14, 2009 at 6:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks for your insightful analysis of an over-used device for suggesting that words and statements made by others should not be taken at face value. They might better by labeled "insinuation quotes". One could argue that they aren't used enough in contexts such as war reports. [Note the difference between "The attacks resulted in the deaths of 12 extremists" and "The attacks resulted in the deaths of 12 'extremists' (according to officials)". Some languages have a verb mood for explicitly conveying that a statement (made by others and passed ahead by a reporter) is neither endorsed nor rejected by the reporter. It would be nice if we had such an option in English. "Allegedly" doesn't quite work: it suggests the reporter is skeptical about the information.

- david carraher

January 14, 2009 at 7:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The NYT's opinion pages are not rabidly liberal, but the WSJ's are rabidly conservative. For years, the WSJ didn't even have a liberal op-ed columnist. Now it does, but only once week. The Times has two -- twice a week. The WSJ has nearly two op-ed pages, almost exclusively devoted to conservative opinions. The Times has only one, and with a wide variety of views liberal and conservative. The WSJ's opinion pages are both conservative and cowardly.

- johnedit

January 14, 2009 at 8:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

td - thank you for your "unwitting" example of JC's point.

- obvious

January 14, 2009 at 8:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Have you ever read "Investor's Business Daily," aka IBD? Besides being on a much lower level journalistically from the WSJ, its op-ed section was so crazily far right that it made WSJ's op-ed section appear reasonable by comparison. IBD's idea of a "left-wing" guest columnist was David Broder, the quintessential moderate old bloviator from the Washington Post staff. During the campaign IBD ran an endless series of "special" op-ed features under the title "OBAMA AND SOCIALISM". The scary thing is that they were dead serious. Worst of all, the op-ed section's far-right slant bleeds into the front-page journalism predictably for a small paper with a single, rabidly right-wing founder/owner. I couldn't take it any more, cancelled my subscription.

- Anthony

January 14, 2009 at 9:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I used to work at the WSJ, in the newsroom. Other editors referred to the edit page people, down the hall on the ninth floor, as "those Nazis." On the other hand, life is so much finer when you see things in black and white, and have a gun in your hand and God on your side.

-

January 14, 2009 at 9:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TD - I just want to say that it is a pleasure to read civil, thoughtful, non name calling conservatives who do more than spout insults and platitudes, seriously - thank you. I even see what you're saying and have no problem with your take on "Universal." It's one of those eye of the beholder things to me, both sides have a case. But considering the source, I'm less likely to give them the benefit of the doubt. They are so dishonest most of the time. I'd honestly like to be able to hear their side in a civil, rational manner, but too often they don't care about credibility. At least the NYT always has a weekly conservative columnist and has for generations (Kristol is a hippy compared to Buchanan). The WSJ considers itself bi-partisan when they allow Joe Lieberman to write a couple of columns on how cowardly everyone is in his party. Oy.

- WandreyCer

January 14, 2009 at 10:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The WSJ is rabidly conservative and the New Republic is rabidly pro-israeli......pot meet kettle.

- Honest John

January 14, 2009 at 11:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hit your head earlier today guy? Seems so.

- Honest John

January 14, 2009 at 11:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

With or without quotation marks, there's no such thing as a "scientific consensus." When it comes to science, there are, by definition, proven and universally accepted scientific facts (e.g, E=mc2) and unproven scientific theories (e.g., potentially catastrophic man-made global warming). Certainly some theories may be more educated and plausible than others. But no unproven theory can possibly justify the expenditure of trillions of tax dollars or the imposition of radical limitations on energy-dependent economies that feed and clothe billions of people worldwide.

- Darren in DC

January 14, 2009 at 11:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I live for the WSJ Edit page. I turn open and read it first. It's by far the most insightful vs. the NY Times, which I read strictly for laughs. Sounds like Chait is jealous of Gigot (as he probably should be). He also is off the mark. Things like "scientific consensus" don't exist in sciene as Michael Crichton wrote. Science is not opinion, it is fact. Because a majorty of scientists 'believe' something doesn't make it fact. That was the point. Of course they are right about that too. Largest ice caps recorded since 1979. Pravda predicting an ice age. Gore getting rich on 'scientific consensus'. But I digress. I happened upon this article in TNR, and reading these inane comments make me realize why TNR is not a place I go to. Have a nice day.

- Doug P

January 14, 2009 at 11:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I might be easier to understand the worldview of the typical WSJ op-ed writer by sampling the social dynamics of his rarified fraternity. I worked for many years on the WSJ’s news side (where op-ed staffers were often referred to as the paper’s “welfare queens” – smug loafers who got paid to bloviate all day while the work that actually sold newspapers took place elsewhere). I wish I had tape-recorded a cafeteria conversation, circa 1999, that I overheard among several op-ed staffers trying to top each other in what sounded like some sort of right-wing fealty ritual scripted by Stephen Colbert: Ideologue No. 1: “I don’t want a bunch of antitrust regulators telling Microsoft how to run its business.” Ideologue No. 2: “Well, I don’t want antitrust regulators telling anyone what to do.” Ideologue No. 3: “Yeah? Well, I don’t think we should have antitrust laws at all ….” … and onward into the Hayekian stratosphere. I left before they repealed the Social Contract. Peer pressure – the desire to score points for the WSJ team – is clearly a factor. But the more interesting question is whether these folks actually believe what they write. The benign answer: They feel a social responsibility to ensure that the conservative argument gets a hearing, even if they don’t believe that argument (and even if it has plenty of other shills out there in Fox World and Limbaugh Land). The cynical answer: They’re just pandering to their high-net-worth constituency. The truly malign answer: They’re intellectual vandals gleefully spray-painting graffiti on the national conversation. ###

- Chris Gay

January 14, 2009 at 11:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Since you're doing pieces that treat well-established and widespread devices as new phenomena, you should also cover the practice of including all, "uhhhhh"'s, hesitations, and other verbal tics in printed transcripts of speeches, interviews, etc. Really makes the speaker read like a total idiot, and was used to fine effect against Bush...ObUUUUUUUHma is likely next, although the perpetrators will almost certainly differ.

- selish70

January 14, 2009 at 11:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For those of us who subscribe to THE WEEK magazine, we would miss the WSJ editorial page were it to disappear. THE WEEK prides itself on giving "both sides" of every controversy and whenever it is faced with some "controversy" - for example: "This morning, most observers agree, the sun came up at dawn" - the only place they can turn for an "opposing" viewpoint is to the WSJ editorial page. It's probably the only forum on the planet where "sunrise" is "controversial" if it offends conservative ideology.

- JKL

January 15, 2009 at 12:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

totally agree!

- marc

January 16, 2009 at 6:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You tell 'em!

- Peter

February 17, 2009 at 2:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close