Stupid New York Times tricks (updated)

The New York Times has perfected the art of remaining strictly factual while conveying a misleading impression. The latest example comes from this Sunday article by Katharine Seelye, which claims that

"Back in 1992, the Bush Whitehouse deemed Oprah Winphrey's daytime talk show insufficiently serious for an incumbant president to visit." 

That may be true of George Bush 41, to whom the article refers. But I distinctly recall that George W. Bush 43 went on Oprah's program during his 2000 campaign and even kissed Oprah when went out on stage. Here
is a transcript of the visit, via CNN. The appearance even made 
the Internet Movie Data Base as a screen credit for the President.

While Ms Seelye did not outright lie here, there is definitely spinning to give a certain impression with the artful (read: Clintonesque) use of the term "Bush White House", which subliminally implicates both Bushes, and the qualifier "incumbent." The obvious intent is to conjure up images of a disdainful Bush disrespecting Oprah Winfrey, an icon to many Americans, particularly women.

(Jack Kemp is not the politician of the same name.)


John Schedler wrties:

This reminds me of a couplet from William Blake:

A truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent.

A partial truth told with intent to deceive is, morally, the exact equivalent an outright lie.
If you experience technical problems, please write to