Joan Vennochi's Off Her Meds Again
Joan Vennochi got a well-earned drubbing in this morning's Globe for her latest little passive-aggressive attack on John Edwards. Not content with mocking the candidate's hair, she's moved on to impugning the candidate and his wife's motives in announcing publicly the return of the latter's cancer, in what the press has been calling "incurable but treatable" form.
Vennochi's modus operandi seems to be to broadcast the nasty message of "the most cynical pundits and radio talk-show hosts" on the right while pretending she's above them with little caveats like "that is a harsh conclusion I do not share." It's as artless as it is disingenuous.
In Sunday's paper she used her formula, writing about Elizabeth Edwards' cancer with typical Vennochi subtlety and finesse: "The most cynical pundits and radio talk-show hosts accused John Edwards of using his wife's illness strictly to garner political sympathy." Then she added, just to clarify: "That is a harsh conclusion I do not share."
You almost feel sorry for her. But then you have to look on the bright side. Life trolling in the gutter would be pretty unbearable if you couldn't convince yourself somehow that you were actually traveling the high road.
It's a standard rhetorical trick, actually. Goes back to, let's see, was it Cato? At least a few thousand years back. "I will not stoop to accuse my opponent of being a sleazeball, as so many have done. No, it would be wrong of me to even mention his vile crimes, so I will not speak of them."
Reply to this
Criticizing the writing style of the messenger while ignoring the message!
Brilliant!
Reply to this
I think it's clear where I stand on the message, too, Johnny. Maybe it's a little too brilliant for ya.
Reply to this