Comments on: Reuters Misleads About Bush Saying ‘Mandela’s Dead’ http://www.bloggernews.net/110378 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:39:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Paul McGlade http://www.bloggernews.net/110378#comment-92785 Paul McGlade Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:07:58 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/110378#comment-92785 I agree that Reuters are guilty of misrepresenting the comments as another "Bush gaffe". However, I am surprised by the number of people defending the President who are portraying his comments as perfectly reasonable (and hence any miscomprehension is a result of of deliberate attack or ignorance). It seems fairly clear that, although Bush's main sense can be worked out in context and once he finishes his point - he was raising a metaphorical comparison - the way he expressed it was a little confusing, if not slightly weird. Had he said "The Iraqi Mandelas are dead", we would not be having this discussion. His choice to use the singular in his initial headline statement without any indication that it was metaphorical, then switch to the plural and only explain the initial statement in an associative way makes the way he expressed his whole point slightly jarring. I would say that it is a bad example of a "Bush gaffe", but a reasonable example of how Bush's trademark direct rhetoric is not always used well in more complex analogies. I agree that Reuters are guilty of misrepresenting the comments as another “Bush gaffe”. However, I am surprised by the number of people defending the President who are portraying his comments as perfectly reasonable (and hence any miscomprehension is a result of of deliberate attack or ignorance).

It seems fairly clear that, although Bush’s main sense can be worked out in context and once he finishes his point - he was raising a metaphorical comparison - the way he expressed it was a little confusing, if not slightly weird.

Had he said “The Iraqi Mandelas are dead”, we would not be having this discussion.

His choice to use the singular in his initial headline statement without any indication that it was metaphorical, then switch to the plural and only explain the initial statement in an associative way makes the way he expressed his whole point slightly jarring.

I would say that it is a bad example of a “Bush gaffe”, but a reasonable example of how Bush’s trademark direct rhetoric is not always used well in more complex analogies.

]]>