I was reading Dana Milbank’s account of the Roberts Confirmation hearings when I came across this passage (italics added):
“Are you sending us a message?” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, asked hopefully. Democrats labored to unmask Roberts as a fierce conservative, but they were largely thwarted.
The clock in Hart 216 neared 11 this morning, and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Democrats’ liberal lion, was on deck to question Roberts. He tapped his pencil, fixed his tie, adjusted his glasses, scratched his brow, leaned his cheek on his fist and scowled down at the nominee. Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and John Cornyn (R-Tex.), two of the committee’s conservatives, left the room rather than expose themselves to the exchange.
What struck me about the passage was the use of subjective language in what is supposed to be a newspaper story. Thus the italics. I italicized what I believed to be more artful construction of a narrative, rather than something that can be verified.
I can’t help but wander if Milbank is a frustrated novelist. Which would explain his generally sarcastic tone, not to mention his tendency to lash out randomly at people.
If that’s the case, a tip to Mr. Milbank: since you referred to Kennedy as a “liberal lion,” it’s a better choice to say he “snarled” instead of “scowled.”
Hey, this post is now linked from the “Who’s Blogging?” box on the Post article.
—Keith • 6:25 pm
Very interesting. If you check out the other links, they’re right-wing bloggers who also picked up on Milbank’s language, and are using it to bash the left.
Thanks Dana.
—alt hippo • 9:14 pm
Milbank is a columnist according to the Washington Post, so revealed because of the outrage which came from his handling of the meeting of the Judiciary Committee Democrats on the DSM. So, he is free to write about the details of an event as if he were a reporter, while piling on the snark and the sneering ridicule.
To me, he’s just a deceitful bastard. Yes, these words have dictionary definitions, and yes, he’s not operating outside them. Thinking on it a bit, there’s an important name for the persuasive writer who engages in this kind of rules-lawyering and doublespeak: a sophist. No, I don’t mean the school of philosophy, and no I don’t merely mean someone who engages in subtle or devious argument. I mean the kind of person who argues not for the sake of finding truth or reaching agreement, but solely for the sake of winning the argument. No mater what the merits of his position are, or the lack thereof.
—StealthBadger • 9:47 pm
I think you’re on to something StealthBadger.
When you say: “No, I don’t mean the school of philosophy, and no I don’t merely mean someone who engages in subtle or devious argument. I mean the kind of person who argues not for the sake of finding truth or reaching agreement, but solely for the sake of winning the argument. No mater what the merits of his position are, or the lack thereof.”
How’s that different from what Milbank is doing? Is he that different from the Sophists? Might Dana Milbank be the modern example of cleverness for the sake of cleverness?
—alt hippo • 10:59 pm
Because the original Sophists were teachers, which he isn’t Perhaps I’d call him a maleducator. Also because I would not say his tactics were any more subtle than the little boy who shoots spitballs at the girls, then points to someone else and says “he did it!” Devious, I’ll… reluctantly grant. Only because he manages to get paid for his chicanery.
Dana Milbank is sort of like Faux Nooz. He offers no new knowledge, only comforting ignorance.
I don’t know why he bothers pretending anymore, he’d be much happier at Townhall.com.
—StealthBadger • 12:38 pm, September 14