Tanenhaus & The NYT’s Style-Book

Roger Kimball (whoops, earlier said Roger Simon) lays out the New York Times’ style-book for political attack disguised as news, with regard to McCain’s use of his wife’s jet:

1. Prissy introductory sentence or two noting that Mr. McCain has a reputation [read “unearned reputation”] for taking the ethical high road on issues like campaign finance reform.
2. “The-Times-has-learned” sentence intimating some tort or misbehavior.
3. A paragraph or two of exposition that simultaneously reveals that a) Mr. McCain actually didn’t do anything wrong but b) he would have if only the law had been different and besides everyone knows he is guilty in spirit.
It’s really easy once you get the hang of it. Here’s how it looks in practice: [read the rest]

Sam Tanenhaus, editor of the NYT’s Book Review and Week In Review sections, follows the NYT’s style-book in Tanenhaus’ Week In Review discussion of John McCain’s age:
1. Prissy introductory sentence or two: “Much has been made of Senator John McCain’s advancing years. He is, as everyone knows, the oldest candidate in the field, and if things go his way in November he will take office at age 72, which will make him older than any other new president in history. This fact has provoked merriment, most conspicuously on late-night television, where he is often the butt of codger jokes.” No mention of any older serving president, no mention of McCain hiking across the Grand Canyon and Obama and Clinton not, and late-night comedy as arbiter of merit of whether age is indicator of qualification or capability.

2. “The-Times-has-learned” sentence intimating some tort or misbehavior.”: “Actually, he inhabits a more serious historic role, as the latest — and almost certainly the last — hope for Americans born in the 1930s to send one of their own to the White House. The 1900s, the 1910s, the 1920s and the 1940s have all been represented in the White House. But not the 1930s.

"It is the missing decade. A demographic blip? Perhaps. But it might also be that Americans born in the 1930s lack the particular qualities we look for in our national leaders.” According to what authoritative study? According to what authority, of any type? None mentioned, except that JFK promised “the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans — born in this century.” Comparing himself to Eisenhower. No mention of our adversaries deeming JFK’s inexperience and the temperament of his advisors as encouragement to build the Berlin Wall, place missiles in Cuba, or increase subversion of South Vietnam.

3. A paragraph or two of exposition that simultaneously reveals that a) Mr. McCain actually didn’t do anything wrong but b) he would have if only the law had been different and besides everyone knows he is guilty in spirit.: Read the rest of Tanenhaus’ column.

Sam Tanenhaus is capable of much better. His biography of Whittaker Chambers is exemplary in fact and evoking the conflicting, and very different from now, spirits and intellectual currents of those times. Tanenhaus’ upcoming bio of William Buckley, hopefully, will be as enlightening.

Is the difference between Tananhaus’ absurd column and his superior bio books that in the former Tananhaus follows the NYT’s style-book and in the latter follows the style-book for serious writing? Obviously.

Tanenhaus' ridiculous column is, ironically, titled, "When The Times Makes The Man." Obviously, the (New York) Times makes the style-book that Tanenhaus follows, to his discredit compared to what he is otherwise capable.