by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math
Give the New York Times props for their occasional efforts to fight poor journalism & sourcing practices. In 2004, when the Bush administration practice of giving background briefings that were really nothing more than spin was relatively new, the Times and (Washington Post) started inserting the source's reason for speaking on background. Often times the source would just offer "so I can speak more candidly" while regurgitating talking points, but it was at least a bit more transparency. Later the paper changed its construction to "the source, whom the Times granted anonymity because ...", which implied that maybe some day the paper might start refusing to print background material they perceived as fluff. It's not perfect, but it's a start (the breakdown in GOP message discipline has helped, as sources are now more willing to leak hard news).
That still left a problem with the dreaded "some say" construction. Adam Nagourney is often a target out here on the Internets for his articles wherin "some Democrats" back-seat drive the Kerry campaign, Howard Dean's 50 state strategy, etc. [Nagourney would also feature slightly more newsworthy off-the-record quotes from what unemployed political strategists who thought they could do better]. But the NYT seems to be experimenting with fixes to this problem as well. Via First Draft, in what's otherwise a very fair piece on Elizabeth Edwards' Thursday announcement, the paper seems to have asked its writers to come up with a better name for "some people" than ... well, "some people". But the first attempt makes reveals the old man behind the curtain:
