TPM reader NB reports in from the field on <$NoAd$>the semantic chaos that has the Grey Lady spinning in circles …
“Bush Finds a Backer in Moynihan, Who’s Not Talking“
“Senators Urge Bush to Sell Overhaul of Social Security”
Josh,
It appears a semantics battle is being waged at The NYTimes…the above links from today’s paper indicate inner (dare we say personal) turmoil. Richard Stevenson comes out of the gate strong, using “private investment accounts” in the first sentence. He loses his footing, however in the third graph and writes of “ways of establishing personal accounts…” and repeats this in paragraph five. Stevenson comes roaring back near the end, reverting to “private investment accounts” (albeit in reference to Moynihan’s plan which may have used that term specifically).
In the second article “private” is used four times and “personal” once.
Heated editorial arguments involved here, a transitional phase between “private” and “personal”? Or just a case of writers not needing a thesaurus now that Bush’s PR hacks have given them an alternative…
cheers,
NB
Atlanta
[ed.note: We’ve just awarded NB a Special Edition Privatize This! TPM T-Shirt for conspicuous gallantry in the battle to save Social Security, service on the Orwell front.]
[Late Update: With his permission, we are happy to announce that NB is none other than Neal Broffman of Atlanta.]
