Friday, June 23, 2006

DOESN’T ADD UP — by Steve Nadis

Ever since Emerson, much has been made of a “foolish consistency.” But what of foolish inconsistencies? Should we just let them pass by, unchallenged? Or should we take a stand for moral, logical, and grammatical rectitude? One author has bravely chosen the latter course, and that–as they say in horse racing–has made all the difference.

Allow me to present Exhibit A. In yesterday’s Metro, a free Boston tabloid, the headline of one article read: “Higher gas prices mean modest increase in tourism.” The caption, a mere 1/2-inches above that line, read: “Faneuil Hall Marketplace and other Boston attractions may see fewer tourists this year.” Yet if, as the article plainly states (in the very first sentence) that Massachusetts expects to see a “modest increase in tourism,” why do they–in the same breath, as it were–insist on speaking of “fewer tourists”?

Shall we proceed to Exhibit B? (I’ll meet you in the foyer.) An article in last week’s Harvard University newspaper claimed that the naturalist E.O. Wilson is “optimistic about life on Earth.” Yet a photo caption, again only about an inch away, says that Wilson sees the 21st century as “a time when humans will celebrate and preserve biodiversity, or wreck life on Earth.” If that passes for optimism these days, then call me (an avowed skeptic) an optimist. And when you’re done calling me an optimist, Call Me Snake.

Posted by Snake at 03:35:35
Comments

5 Responses to “DOESN’T ADD UP — by Steve Nadis”

  1. DrMax says:
    June 23, 2006 at 1:11 pm

    I guess that’s the state of journalism today Snake. It’s almost like claiming your blog is about volleyball when a majority of your entries are about scones.

  2. Snake says:
    June 23, 2006 at 1:17 pm

    Well put, Doc. Call it false advertising, call it misrepresentation, Call Me Snake–yet another example of print journalism(???) that “doesn’t add up.”

  3. gatemouth says:
    June 23, 2006 at 1:21 pm

    What you have to realize is that the nature of logic changes with each Presidential administration. For instance, in the Clinton administration, there was a whole different kind of oratory going on in the Blue Room, and no one knew what the definition of “is” was.

    In the Bush administration, traditional logic has been replaced with XOR logic, meaning everything gets flipped to its opposite. “Increase” now means “decrease”; “decrease” means “escalate”. A “peace dividend” means world-wide hatred, “national security” means constant surveillance, “diplomacy” means “unilateral action”, “liberation” means “occupation”, and “taking responsibility” means “paying lip service”.

    Once you understand this, a lot of contradictions suddenly make perfect sense. Also, you realize that being President takes no effort at all.

  4. Snake says:
    June 23, 2006 at 1:40 pm

    Excellent points, Gatemouth. It sounds like the Bush Administration is kind of slow; they just got around to reading 1984 now.

  5. Wakfu says:
    March 6, 2009 at 9:42 am

    Your blog is amazing,i really like all the word and the style.

Leave a Reply