{"id":650,"date":"2004-04-29T01:09:48","date_gmt":"2004-04-29T08:09:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp\/2004\/04\/no_coddling_please\/"},"modified":"2004-04-29T01:09:48","modified_gmt":"2004-04-29T08:09:48","slug":"no_coddling_please","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/2004\/04\/no_coddling_please.html","title":{"rendered":"NO CODDLING, PLEASE"},"content":{"rendered":"

Don Wycliff wants to know: “Why is the Democrat-loving, Republican-hating, pond
\nscum-swilling, lower-than-the-rug-on-the-floor, biased, liberal [curl upper lip when pronouncing]
\npress protecting George W. Bush?” Good question. It’s bugged me for a long time, too.<\/P>
\n

To put it another way, Wycliff has an interesting take<\/FONT><\/EM><\/B><\/A> today in the
\nChicago Tribune on how “an inarticulate president” is saved from himself by professional
\njournalists who translate “Bushspeak” for their readers. (Thank you for the link,
\nRomenesko.)<\/P>
\n

Reporters, he writes, are “trained to seek meaning and the meaningful” and so
\nfocus on winnowing the sublime from the ridiculous in “any utterance by the president.” Those
\nwho cover him, therefore, have routinely “overlooked the mangled syntax, penetrated the
\nrhetorical fog and extracted some usable lines from the dross and manufactured stories that had
\nthe president sounding, if not quite statesmanlike, then at least intelligible.”<\/P>
\n

The why of it is more complicated, however. Wycliff writes: “Ideally, we would have a
\npresident so articulate that we would never be in doubt as to what he said.” Since that’s not the
\ncase, “this confronts us with the question whether our purpose is to transmit to readers what the
\npresident means when he speaks out or to simply relate what he says. I have always felt that
\ntransmitting meaning is paramount.”<\/P>
\n

There we disagree. Reporters shouldn’t be translating what the little fucker says into what he
\nmeans or what they think he means. If they want to hold his hand, let them join his staff.<\/P>
\n

Postscript:<\/STRONG> If you want to see the guy at his most inarticulate, just
\ngo to CNN.com<\/FONT><\/EM><\/B><\/A> and click the video<\/B> link (on the
\nright) next to the headline Bush: ‘We answered all’ 9\/11 panel questions<\/B>. It’s absolutely
\nhilarious.<\/P>
\n

This just in:<\/B> “I’m laughing out loud at Wednesday’s blog<\/FONT><\/EM><\/B><\/A>,” Straight Up reader Joan Daniels
\nwrites. “By the way, during his what-was-it 3rd prime-time press conference in almost four years
\na couple of weeks ago, updating us on the current situation in Iraq, his inarticulate comments
\nwere unbelievable as usual. As a matter of fact, his command of the English language actually
\nseemed to have further deteriorated, if that’s possible. There were so many misstatements to
\nchoose from. … <\/P>
\n

“How can he be the President? Doesn’t his inability to utter an intelligent sentence concern
\nanyone, even if in favor of his policies? Isn’t he the Leader of the Free World? How about his
\nstaff? Are they sitting in their seats grimacing as he speaks? I’m embarrassed that he’s my
\nPresident!”<\/P><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Don Wycliff wants to know: “Why is the Democrat-loving, Republican-hating, pond scum-swilling, lower-than-the-rug-on-the-floor, biased, liberal [curl upper lip when pronouncing] press protecting George W. Bush?” Good question. It’s bugged me for a long time, too. To put it another way, Wycliff has an interesting take today in the Chicago Tribune on how “an inarticulate president” […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-650","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-main","7":"entry"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pbvgEs-au","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/650","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=650"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/650\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=650"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=650"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/herman\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=650"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}