Posted by Jim Lindgren:
Slatism of the Day.--
You would think that George W. Bush would make enough verbal gaffes
that a journalist wouldn't have to try to trick his readers into
thinking that Bush is more inarticulate than he is. But Slate, under
the direction of Jacob Weisberg, must come up with a Bushism of the
Day to feed their daily feature and the cash cow of calendars and
other merchandise catering to Bush-loathers. Eugene has been
insightfully covering [1]these over [2]the last [3]year or [4]so.
Accordingly, on days when Bush has made no real mistakes, Slate must
squeeze quotations of context or pretend that informal, off-the-cuff
speech should look on the page like edited prose. Real conversation is
a series of starts and stops, with doubling back to respond to the
words and facial expressions of the hearers.
First, quotations out-of-context. Consider this example of a sensible
statement that seems silly out of context:
"I'm here skiing the New Hampshire primary." (Jan. 23, 2004)
Second, inarticulateness. Consider this example of inarticulateness:
"Well this a, of course, when we were up there, we were talking
skiing a little bit, and we were were talking talking politics.
(Jan. 23, 2004)
Certainly, "we were were talking talking politics" is inarticulate,
but it is the ordinary sort of speaking error that even those far more
articulate than Bush would make.
I can prove my last assertion because these are not "Bushisms," but
rather "Slatisms." I searched for an online recording of Jacob
Weisberg and found both of these on the second one I listened
to--Jacob Weisberg [5]interviewing a Kerry family member on NPR (Jan.
23, 2004). And this was a prepared interview in which Weisberg had
time to prepare his questions.
I should say that Weisberg is extremely fluent and articulate in his
interviewing style, well beyond most speakers and well beyond George
W. Bush. Yet this only brings home how unfair and what poor journalism
Slate's feature frequently is. If I had listened to more than two of
Weisberg's NPR commentaries or interviews, I would probably been able
to come up with many more examples--especially if I were to use the
misleading standards that Slate uses in choosing examples.
Personally, I usually try for exteme naturalness in presentation, with
a style designed to convey intellectual excitement about otherwise dry
data, rather than designed to be read in a transcript. At scholarly
meetings, I find the attempt at perfect prose (typical of philosophers
sticking closely to their prepared remarks) usually boring and lacking
in the spontaneity necessary to give the impression that you really
believe what you are saying. That is why lawyers are usually trained
not to use fully prepared remarks, but instead to use an outline.
Indeed, the advice is that, if you write out the text of your remarks,
you should outline the full text, and then tear it up.
References
1. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_02_20-2005_02_26.shtml#1109364684
2. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_02_06-2005_02_12.shtml#1108075083
3. http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1106178419.shtml
4. http://volokh.com/2003_05_04_volokh_archive.html#200264222
5. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1613990
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
