Translating NYT Editorialese into English
Print Friendly and PDF
The crafting of a New York Times editorial is an august undertaking requiring the judicious involvement of a distinguished body of thinkers selected for their wisdom and forbearance. So I feel privileged to be able to present excerpts from the NYT's January 13, 2011 editorial, along with confidential notes explaining more fully the thought processes behind this morning's profound missive to an eagerly awaiting nation:
Editorial: As We Mourn We should take the president's message to heart and rise above partisanship.
Please note that we of the New York Times Editorial Board aren't using the famous Editorial We here. By "we," we don't actually mean "us," we mean you, you hate-filled, nauseating, vomitous, anti-illegal immigration Republicans you. Don't you realize how vile you are? Didn't you see Machete?

As for our side, we're always above partisanship. For example, when our Frank Rich, in his May 1, 2010 NYT column discussing SB1070, "If Only Arizona Were the Real Problem," used the following terms in discussing you conservatives: "angry," "virus," "hysteria," "vicious," "bigoted," "apoplexy," "slimed," "snarling," "notorious," "incendiary," and "rage," he was speaking out against divisiveness. Your divisiveness.

Similarly, when our Paul Krugman attributed Jared Loughner's murders to a right-wing "Climate of Hate"-the vibrations from which he could feel throbbing painfully within his skull even though he was 2,000 miles from all you vicious bigots in Arizona sending out your repulsive brain waves in his direction-well, maybe he was, technically speaking, "wrong," but he deserved to be right. After all, he has the Nobel Prize for all those serene, graceful, self-deprecating, good-tempered columns he has written. Not you. He took one look at the picture of the murderer and made a Nobel-quality inference: "White guy in Arizona: I knew it!" But you wouldn't understand the sophistication of Dr. Krugman's thought processes.

Mr. Obama called on ideological campaigners to stop vilifying their opponents.
Now, we could go around all day, back and forth, over who implied that conservatives inspired Loughner to kill six people. Was it us? Or was it ... you? Maybe you did it to yourself out of some sick self-destructive urge. Frankly, we don't remember, and we don't have time to go look it up right now. We're busy, important people.
The only way to move forward after such a tragedy, he said, is to cast aside "point-scoring and pettiness." ...
See, when you object to being falsely accused of causing mass murder, that's point-scoring and pettiness. In contrast, when we vilify you, we're not being ideological, we're just looking at the bigger picture, namely, your despicableness.
It was important that Mr. Obama transcend the debate about whose partisanship has been excessive and whose words have sown the most division and dread. This page and many others have identified those voices and called on them to stop demonizing their political opponents.
When we said in the headline to our January 9, 2011 editorial:

Shooting in Arizona Bloodshed and Invective Arizona should take the lead in quieting the voices of intolerance ....

Sure, we knew by then that this Loughner guy was a crazy radical. But that's not the point. The point is that we meant that we can't tolerate your voices, which are, by definition, voices of intolerance and thus you must shut up now before we do something we'll all regret tomorrow.

You are just being controversial. Why can't you stop yapping and just let us accuse you of horrible things in peace, without you giving us any lip and back talk? Don't you understand who we are? We craft The Narrative. We write The Rough Draft of History. Not you.

The president's words were an important contrast to the ugliness that continues to swirl in some parts of the country.
Ugly, ugly, ugly. What's wrong with you people?
The accusation by Sarah Palin that "journalists and pundits" had committed a "blood libel" when they raised questions about overheated rhetoric was especially disturbing, given the grave meaning of that phrase in the history of the Jewish people.
And don't you dare suggest that we are projecting the thoughts swirling endlessly, relentlessly, over-poweringly within our own brains upon you. The concept of "projection" was made up by Freud, so you don't get to use it.
Earlier in the day, the speaker of the House, John Boehner, and the minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, issued their own, very welcome, calls to rise above partisanship.
Above partisanship-just like us!

Not like you.

Print Friendly and PDF