save your "boos". Glenn responded to my query on the same subject a few pages back. I think it speaks for itself.

As I said in my post, if I missed where he discussed the change, I apologize: I did in fact miss it (on page 32!), and I'm sorry about that.

On the other hand, he engages in some fancy footwork in that discussion:

There was no obligation for me to change it. "Claims" was perfectly accurate. But "suggests" is probably more accurate, and I really didn't want that matter distracting from the crux of the issue here.

I like the idea of something that is "probably more accurate" than "perfectly accurate"! Funny how similar this language is to when mainstream media folks change their posts: "what I wrote was of course perfectly accurate and I stand by it, but just to make it a little more accurate even than that, and to avoid unnecessary distractions, I'll quietly change it." You ask why I bother with this issue: it's because it is so analogous to what GG attacks others for. We are to him as he is to mainstream journalists: vague irritants on minor (in their mind) issues, making strident demands for consistency which are, at best, vaguely acknowledged with a hand wave and a quiet emendation. I love what GG writes and read him every day, but I love it in part because I hate self-contradiction, no matter who does it, and (I confess) no matter how tiny the teapot.

That said, I stand by the equally important (and unaddressed) issue: one does not attribute to "The New York Times" opinions that we glean from close readings of the implications hidden in online posts by reporters. Even if the reporter were to declare outright, "I think X and so does the Times," that doesn't make it so, and reasonable people don't assert such. Major editorial decisions and opinions in the Editorial section clearly reveal the opinions of the NYT; the rest is a complex hodgepodge of participants that may indeed reveal institutional biases, but that's an argument that needs to be made on a case-by-case basis. And there is no particular basis to say that the opinions of this reporter implicitly revealed by his choice of question is in any way the opinion of the New York Times.

What's awesome about this is not just that he's willing to do it, but that he does it so skillfully. "I yield my remaining 5 seconds"! Nice.

What an obnoxious use of the writerly "we". It's like reading an article from the 50's where the hard-boiled essayist writes about how "we" all would just like to sock a woman across the mouth when she gets too sassy. No, "we" don't. And "we" don't find these two baseball-cap-wearing, deeply uninteresting ex-fratboys remotely attractive. Don Draper, yes; petty, self-centered bullies, not so much. I'll grant you may have different tastes; please grant the same for us.