Things We Do Not Say in Outlook
At first glance
As a society (or, “as a nation”)
The American people (unless in a quote)
The narrative (unless referring to a style of writing)
Probe (as substitute for “investigation”)
Begs the question (unless used properly – and so rarely used properly that not worth it)
Be that as it may
It is important to note that
Needless to say
[Anything] 2.0 (or 3.0, or 4.0…)
At a crossroads
Outside the box/Out of the box
Midwife (as a verb that does not involve childbirth)
Imagine (as the first word in your lede)
Effort (as a verb)
Tightly knit community
Rise of the 24-hour news cycle (it rose a long time ago)
Remains to be seen
Feeding frenzy/feeding the frenzy
Dons the mantle of
The argument goes (or its cousin, “the thinking goes”)
Shutter (as a verb)
Paradigm shift (in journalism, all paradigms are shifting)
Unlikely revolutionary (in journalism, all revolutionaries are unlikely)
Unlikely reformer (in journalism, all reformers are unlikely)
Grizzled veteran (in journalism, all veterans are grizzled – unless they are “seasoned”)
Any “not-un” formulation (as in “not unsurprising”)
There, I said it (more self-important than “voicey”)
To be sure
Magazines are dead, long live magazines.
Publishing is undergoing something genuinely exciting in New York, a new, post-digital dawn in which a web-literate and politically engaged generation is re-energising journalism with fierce-thinking in stylish print and online publications; it’s from them that we’ll take our next generation of household-name writers.
Any pretentious 20-year-old can, of course, make a blog and call it an important new literary journal but these magazines, driven by ego (not necessarily a bad engine) and by social conscience, are as committed to articulating their grievances – the iniquities of drone strikes, for example, or the perniciousness of online anonymity – as they are their enthusiasms. They’re enriched, too, by cross-pollination: the editors write for one another, go to the same parties and, like actual friends, call each other out as frequently as they big each other up.
The new publications include Triple Canopy, a digital journal of arts and culture, as well as the radical online magazine, the New Inquiry. The newest title to generate heat is the American Reader, which has already been hailed as “the New Yorker’s younger, cooler sister”. But, as founder Uzoamaka Maduka points out, she and her peers constitute “one big community”. The New Inquiry’s Rachel Rosenfelt expresses a similar sentiment, venturing that her project might be “a movement as much as a magazine”.
Read on: New York Magazines - start spreading the news | Guardian
I Eagerly Await Niall Ferguson’s “James Fallows is Wrong” Piece
Because, unlike Krugman, Fallows gives chapter and verse on what’s wrong with that embarrassing Newsweek story.
“As a Harvard Alum, I Apologize.
Yes, I know, you could imagine many sentences that would follow that headline. But here is what I have in mind right now: A tenured professor of history at my undergraduate alma mater has written a cover story for Daily Beast/Newsweek that is so careless and unconvincing that I wonder how he will presume to sit in judgment of the next set of student papers he has to grade. It’s by the irrepressible Niall Ferguson, it is headlined “Obama’s Gotta Go,” and its case rests on logic of this sort:
Certainly, the stock market is well up (by 74 percent) relative to the close on Inauguration Day 2009. But the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak.
Hmmm, what might possibly be the flaw in this comparison? Apart from the fact that Obama did not take office until January 2009 and that private sector jobs have recovered better in his first three-plus years than they did under George W. Bush …
I do wonder how a criticism of a president, based on a benchmark a year before he took office, and about 16 months before his main “stimulus” effort began taking effect, would be assessed in Harvard’s history or economics departments. Unemployment is America’s worst economic problem, and Obama’s. But this is not the way to demonstrate it. The Atlantic’s Robert Wright has argued, to similar effect, that relative to European economies hit by the terrible employment shock of 2008-2009, the U.S. has recovered better, faster, than others have.”
Read on. [previously]
“There are multiple errors and misrepresentations in Niall Ferguson’s cover story in Newsweek — I guess they don’t do fact-checking — but this is the one that jumped out at me. Ferguson says:
The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012–22 period.
Readers are no doubt meant to interpret this as saying that CBO found that the Act will increase the deficit. But anyone who actually read, or even skimmed, the CBO report (pdf) knows that it found that the ACA would reduce, not increase, the deficit — because the insurance subsidies were fully paid for.
Now, people on the right like to argue that the CBO was wrong. But that’s not the argument Ferguson is making — he is deliberately misleading readers, conveying the impression that the CBO had actually rejected Obama’s claim that health reform is deficit-neutral, when in fact the opposite is true.
More than that: by its very nature, health reform that expands coverage requires that lower-income families receive subsidies to make coverage affordable. So of course reform comes with a positive number for subsidies — finding that this number is indeed positive says nothing at all about the impact on the deficit unless you ask whether and how the subsidies are paid for. Ferguson has to know this (unless he’s completely ignorant about the whole subject, which I guess has to be considered as a possibility). But he goes for the cheap shot anyway.
We’re not talking about ideology or even economic analysis here — just a plain misrepresentation of the facts, with an august publication letting itself be used to misinform readers. The Times would require an abject correction if something like that slipped through. Will Newsweek?”
Paul Krugman: Unethical Commentary, Newsweek Edition | NYT
UPDATE: Newsweek Rebuttal