For the second week in a row, a NY Times conservative columnist makes an interesting mistake.
David Brooks writes-
All the habits of verbal thuggery that have long been used against critics of affirmative action, like Ward Churchill and Thomas Sowell, and critics of the radical feminism, like Christina Hoff Summers, are now being turned inward by the Democratic front-runners.That should be Ward Connerly, not Ward Churchill. Like with Bill Kristol, when he mixed up Michael Medved and Michelle Malkin, at least the initials were right.
Two mistakes with initials in the paper of record by conservative columnists in less than 10 days. I smell the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy at work here!(Or at least. hung over copy editors). As Auric Goldfinger said- "Once is Happenstance. Twice is Coincidence. The third time it's Enemy action." I await the third edition of the initials incident. Who will it be next time. Donald Duck when its supposed to be Doris Day?
Hat tip- Eugene Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy who also notes in a post titled 'Why not Ward Cleaver' it is Christina Hoff Sommers and that the online article has been corrected to show Connerly.
Permalink | E-mail This | Technorati Links | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Humor, Media
Comments (4)
"...not Ward Churchill."</p... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Mike | January 16, 2008 8:59 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
"...not Ward Churchill."
Heh, heh. Perhaps Brooks should have entitled his column, "The Chickens Are Coming Home To Roost," which would have succinctly encapsulated his point.
Great piece though, anyway. The current catfight between Obama and Hillary seems to illustrate something that conservatives have been saying for a long time, which is that liberals are no longer able to argue their position because all they have done for the last 30 years is call their opponents names.
1. Posted by Mike | January 16, 2008 8:59 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 16, 2008 08:59
2. Posted by jpm100 | January 16, 2008 11:12 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Its not beyond reason that the liberal editors let sloppy work pass from the Conservatives. No conspiracy but simple disinterest and laziness winning out over integrity.
2. Posted by jpm100 | January 16, 2008 11:12 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 16, 2008 11:12
3. Posted by LoveAmerica Immigrant | January 16, 2008 11:35 AM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Maybe, the NYT is currently busy slandering the US military again.
3. Posted by LoveAmerica Immigrant | January 16, 2008 11:35 AM |
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Posted on January 16, 2008 11:35
4. Posted by Jim Addison | January 16, 2008 3:10 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
That's what they pay editors for: to edit.
Not surprising, given the recent history of fact-checking at NYT.
4. Posted by Jim Addison | January 16, 2008 3:10 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 16, 2008 15:10