I should have remembered the lessons from Mark's discussion late last month and earlier this month about journalists and quotations -- just as Mark figured, an actual transcript of what Bush really said at the Gleneagles G8 knocks some of the air out of my accusation that Bush may have Freudian-slipped.
And reading a bit more of Friday's NYT today, I see that not even the same section of the same newspaper can get the same quote right.
First: according to the transcript Mark made, here's what Bush actually said immediately after the quote I originally cited:
the contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions uh and the uh hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights ((and)) human liberty and those who kill those who got such evil in their heart that they uh they will uh take the lives of innocent folks uh this is uh the war on terror goes on
In the same Alan Cowell story that I cited, this passage is rendered like this:
"The contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those who kill, those who've got such evil in their hearts that they will take the lives of innocent folks." Mr. Bush said. "The war on terror goes on."
In this Richard W. Steveson story, the same passage is rendered like this:
"The contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those who kill, those who've got such evil in their hearts that they will take the lives of innocent folks," Mr. Bush said. "The war on terror goes on."
The difference is just in the absence vs. presence of those two bolded words in the second quote: those of us (and in the period vs. comma before Mr. Bush said, but I'll assume that's just a typo in the first case). Presumably the same editor is responsible for these two stories, both in the International section, separated from each other by two pages in the paper edition (A11 and A13). In both cases, the passage was a single-column-width lone paragraph, so there was no need to remove of us in the first story in order to make things fit better or anything like that. And this removal makes a subtle difference: with of us included -- which is what Bush actually said -- Bush is including himself in the relevant group, especially by contrast with the bare those referring to the London bombers (and, ultimately, "the terrorists"). With of us excluded, on the other hand, Bush is made to appear to be excluding himself from both groups.
[ Comments? ]
Posted by Eric Bakovic at July 9, 2005 04:56 PM