The blogosphere has been afire this week with posts about a New York Times story on the state of the Bill and Hillary Clinton marriage.The placement of the story (at the top of the front page) and it's length (really long) was the Times' way of saying that their marriage will be a hot topic if the Missus runs for president.
David Broder puts it all in perspective in a Washington Post op-ed column, although Jack Shafer over at Slate had the best line:
I'm sure that after 97 editors red-penciled all the direct meaning out of his story, the copy desk stonewashed it soft so nobody would break a tooth while reading individual paragraphs. But read as a whole, the piece has a way of gumming up your mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment