H/T to the nytpicker for this one regarding Friedman's rant of yesterday:
"We suppose it's possible that Friedman's mind produced the same sequence of words, the same constructions and the same ideas, revised only slightly to make his point this morning.
But we also think it's possible -- we'll even go so far as to say, likely -- that Friedman cut and pasted the paragraph from his previous column and tweaked it slightly for today's piece."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Whereas, your speculatory rant on his textual duplication serves as reminder that he does not write in vacuo, it is in the interest of your bandwagon to qualify your choice of the word rant.
ReplyDeleteThe critique of global energy, the portrayal of Saudi oil, and constructive optimism towards ME peace, however centric or mild-mannered, are among the most threatening words to the scariest corporate loons out there. Is your blog intended to supress the issues and slander the voices that surface them?
Default:
ReplyDeleteI didn't post any speculation, nytpicker did. (Are they in my bandwagon? I didn't realize I had one.) In any event, I agree with that blog that Friedman is being eminently lazy by recycling words and ideas that didn't add anything substantial to the conversation the first time around.
Perhaps I mischaracterized Friedman's column as a rant. That word implies strongly felt and expressed ideas, while Friedman's piece is boring (or mild-mannered, as you say) in substance and execution.
I've no intention of suppressing the issues; moreover, no suppression has occurred. Friedman has another piece today wherein he tells us that "today's youth are growing up in the shadow of three bombs:" the nuclear threat, the national debt, and the "climate bomb." I do wish I could suppress these inane turns of phrase.
There's only so much space on the Op-Ed page and I'd rather see some strong argument and analysis. I don't expect Friedman to provide that anytime soon.