> Again you like to make everything black and white.
> If you want Yes and No
> answers you might want to look into getting a Magic
> 8-Ball - they're very
> useful in that regard. ;^)
>
>
> Point One: No. I believe that they are stating that
> they should have given
> more credibility to opposing views then regardless
> of what they now know.
> That the evidence they had then was enough to give
> the stories more
> representation, but they failed to do so. What they
> know makes the article
> newsworthy, but is not key to the article.
>
This is the title of the article:
The Post on WMDs: An Inside Story
This is how the article starts out:
As violence continues in postwar Iraq and U.S. forces
have yet to discover any WMDs, some critics say the
media, including The Washington Post, failed the
country by not reporting more skeptically on President
Bush's contentions during the run-up to war.
This is saying we have yet to find WMDs and the Post
failed the country by not reporting more skeptically.
Connect the dots. You�re saying that it�s a mere
coincidence these statements share a sentence and
that�s fine. I see it differently. The fact that the
article is about WMDs and they mention in the fourth
paragraph that not finding them causes critics to
comment about there coverage makes it clear to me
they�re saying yes we know now we shouldn�t have
buried those stories. Don�t forget they�re not only
talking about WMDs. They say many stories criticizing
the Administration were buried, but this article is
about WMDs.
And then there was this:
Woodward, for his part, said it was risky for
journalists to write anything that might look silly if
weapons were ultimately found in Iraq.
What they know now is they didn't need to worry about
looking silly. If they knew then that wouldn't have
held them back.
> Perhaps considering it from another angle would
> help. What is the purpose
> of this statement? Based on this statement what do
> you think that Post will
> do in the future? How will they change their
> reporting based on this?
They will try to be even handed and won't be afraid to
offend the Administration. That's the message they're
trying to send. But they said they were overwhelmed
and Woodward was to busy with his book to fight for
them. So I don't see how things will change the next
time. They had lots of article doubting the President.
Which ones will they push to page A1 next time? Plus
they said there wasn�t enough evidence to put in on
page one.
�Beyond that, there was the considerable difficulty of
dealing with secretive intelligence officials who
themselves were relying on sketchy data from Iraqi
defectors and other shadowy sources and could never be
certain about what they knew.�
This is another reason it didn�t make it to page one.
But today, with hindsight they should have went with
it anyway. Do you think they�d put stuff like this,
sketchy data from shadowy sources on page A-1 every
day? I think it would be irresponsible.
>
> In your view they're apologizing for missing
> something. They're saying
> "we're sorry, we should have told you".
>
> I think it's telling, and bolsters my argument, that
> this story could stand,
> with only minor changes, as is in a world where we
> did actually find WMDs.
> It wouldn't have been news in that case, but the
> article itself still
> stands: they failed to provide support for the
> opposing views.
I agree with you except I don't think it bolsters your
case.
> Point Three: I still feel the phrase relates to the
> description of a better
> choice with the benefit of hindsight. I suppose you
> could use the benefit
> of hindsight to describe a worse outcome, but I
> wouldn't consider that under
> the phrase.
A better choice yes, not a better quarterback.
>
> For example you watch a game. The QB, "Simmons"
> throws to the end zone but
> it's intercepted. The lost goal eventually loses
> them the game. You might
> here the following the next day:
> "Did you see Simmons throw to Clark? If he'd made
> the catch we would have
> won the game!"
>
> "Did you see Simmons throw to Clark? He could have
> thrown better!"
>
> "Did you see Simmons throw to Clark? He should have
> thrown to Daniels!"
>
> "Did you see Simmons throw to Clark? Why didn't
> Clark get out in front of
> his cover! He just stood there!"
>
>
>
> All the statements benefit from hindsight. The
> first two however are just
> observations - theirs no "quarterbacking" going on.
And they don't relate to my satement or the article.
> The last two statements
> make assertions on how things could have gone
> better, how "they would have
> done things better" - this, to me, is definitely
> "Monday Morning
> Quarterbacking". It's an implication that the
> speaker knew how to effect a
> better outcome
Yes, but still doesn't make him a better quarterback.
It's like saying I would have thrown to Clark if I
were he.
> The Quarterback is the decision maker.
> "Quarterbacking" is making
> decisions. Being a "Monday Morning Quarterback" is
> making fantasy decisions
> after the fact, presumably decisions that would have
> resulted in a better
> outcome. The phrase "benefit of hindsight" implies
> that the outcome would
> be better, not worse.
>
I thought you were claiming the guy at the water
cooler could run and throw better than the
quarterback.
>
> It's a fantasy decision because the speaker can
> never recreate the
> circumstances. Although I still concede point two I
> feel the phrase is best
> applied to somebody that can't actually even be in
> the place of the target
> of criticism. If Simmons said "I should have thrown
> to Daniels" I would
> still find that hard to label "Monday Morning
> Quartbacking".
>
I don't.
>
> It is a slang phrase however - so definitions will
> differ.
>
> The Cambridge Dictionaries offer this one:
>
> "Someone who says how an event or problem should
> have been dealt with by
> others after it has already been dealt with."
>
> American Heritage offers:
>
> "One who criticizes or passes judgment from a
> position of hindsight."
>
> Encarta has this one:
>
> "Somebody who second-guesses: somebody who is
> critical of what somebody else
> has done or who claims to have the right answer
> after an event or situation
> has occurred (informal) [From the idea of someone
> knowing what the coach
> and team did wrong the day after a football game]"
>
>
> The phrase itself, according to Etymology.com
> "originally was pro football
> player slang for sportswriters, attested from 1932".
>
>
>
> "Southpaws & Sunday Punches and other Sporting
> Expressions" by Christine
> Ammer says:
>
> "The term refers to the after-the-fact football
> spectator who 'knows' just
> how the quarterback could have won the game of the
> past weekend, or win with
> a higher score. An Americanism, the term originated
> about 1940 and soon was
> transferred to other examples of twenty-twenty
> (20/20) hindsight. However,
> it is interesting to note that the 1911 edition of
> Ambrose Bierce's 'The
> Devil's Dictionary' defined Monday as 'In Christian
> countries, the day after
> the baseball games.'"
>
>
>
> Most definitions specifically state that the
> commenting is done by others
> (although all don't) and most indicate that the
> statement describes better
> choices or actions. If the origin of the phrase
> given here is to be
> believed it was very specifically not
> self-criticism.
>
The most common one I find is:
"One who criticizes or passes judgment from a position
of hindsight."
As for this:
"An Americanism, the term originated about 1940 and
soon was transferred to other examples of
twenty-twenty (20/20) hindsight."
I'm not really concerned with the origins of the
phrase. I'm using it in its common American form:
twenty-twenty (20/20) hindsight.
-sm
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
