answers you might want to look into getting a Magic 8-Ball - they're very
useful in that regard. ;^)
Point One: No. I believe that they are stating that they should have given
more credibility to opposing views then regardless of what they now know.
That the evidence they had then was enough to give the stories more
representation, but they failed to do so. What they know makes the article
newsworthy, but is not key to the article.
I don't believe that "what they know now" has anything to do with it. It'd
what they knew then. Woodward says "We should have warned readers we had
information that the basis for this was shakier" - not because of how things
turned out, but rather because of the material they had in hand at the time.
Kurtz places Woodward's "groupthink" comment in the past, of what happened
then and why.
Downie says "We didn't pay enough attention to the minority." There is
nothing about what they know now, only what they failed to do then.
Perhaps considering it from another angle would help. What is the purpose
of this statement? Based on this statement what do you think that Post will
do in the future? How will they change their reporting based on this?
In your view they're apologizing for missing something. They're saying
"we're sorry, we should have told you".
In my view they are definitely saying that they missed the story, so there
is an aspect of apology in context. But the core of the article, to me, is
why they missed it. Why, when they had the material, didn't they give it
more representation? To me they are publicly acknowledging a mistake and
dissecting the root cause of that mistake _in the context of the time of the
mistake_ not in the context of what they know now.
The apology, if there is one (and if this is an apology it's a damn weak
one), is for not giving their own reporters the support they needed to show
alternative viewpoints.
I think it's telling, and bolsters my argument, that this story could stand,
with only minor changes, as is in a world where we did actually find WMDs.
It wouldn't have been news in that case, but the article itself still
stands: they failed to provide support for the opposing views.
Point Two: I supposeyou can choose to use it like that, but I wouldn't.
Most definitions specifically make it a point to describe the statement as
coming from a third party. I'll gladly concede the point that you could use
it like that, but I personally still find it very odd.
Point Three: I still feel the phrase relates to the description of a better
choice with the benefit of hindsight. I suppose you could use the benefit
of hindsight to describe a worse outcome, but I wouldn't consider that under
the phrase.
For example you watch a game. The QB, "Simmons" throws to the end zone but
it's intercepted. The lost goal eventually loses them the game. You might
here the following the next day:
"Did you see Simmons throw to Clark? If he'd made the catch we would have
won the game!"
"Did you see Simmons throw to Clark? He could have thrown better!"
"Did you see Simmons throw to Clark? He should have thrown to Daniels!"
"Did you see Simmons throw to Clark? Why didn't Clark get out in front of
his cover! He just stood there!"
All the statements benefit from hindsight. The first two however are just
observations - theirs no "quarterbacking" going on. The last two statements
make assertions on how things could have gone better, how "they would have
done things better" - this, to me, is definitely "Monday Morning
Quarterbacking". It's an implication that the speaker knew how to effect a
better outcome
The Quarterback is the decision maker. "Quarterbacking" is making
decisions. Being a "Monday Morning Quarterback" is making fantasy decisions
after the fact, presumably decisions that would have resulted in a better
outcome. The phrase "benefit of hindsight" implies that the outcome would
be better, not worse.
It's a fantasy decision because the speaker can never recreate the
circumstances. Although I still concede point two I feel the phrase is best
applied to somebody that can't actually even be in the place of the target
of criticism. If Simmons said "I should have thrown to Daniels" I would
still find that hard to label "Monday Morning Quartbacking".
It is a slang phrase however - so definitions will differ.
The Cambridge Dictionaries offer this one:
"Someone who says how an event or problem should have been dealt with by
others after it has already been dealt with."
American Heritage offers:
"One who criticizes or passes judgment from a position of hindsight."
Encarta has this one:
"Somebody who second-guesses: somebody who is critical of what somebody else
has done or who claims to have the right answer after an event or situation
has occurred (informal) [From the idea of someone knowing what the coach
and team did wrong the day after a football game]"
The phrase itself, according to Etymology.com "originally was pro football
player slang for sportswriters, attested from 1932".
"Southpaws & Sunday Punches and other Sporting Expressions" by Christine
Ammer says:
"The term refers to the after-the-fact football spectator who 'knows' just
how the quarterback could have won the game of the past weekend, or win with
a higher score. An Americanism, the term originated about 1940 and soon was
transferred to other examples of twenty-twenty (20/20) hindsight. However,
it is interesting to note that the 1911 edition of Ambrose Bierce's 'The
Devil's Dictionary' defined Monday as 'In Christian countries, the day after
the baseball games.'"
Most definitions specifically state that the commenting is done by others
(although all don't) and most indicate that the statement describes better
choices or actions. If the origin of the phrase given here is to be
believed it was very specifically not self-criticism.
Jim Davis
From: Sam Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 3:05 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Poll: Washinton Post issues mea culpa for prewar coverage
In this article
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58127-2004Aug11.html)
do you think they are stating that because of what
they now know they should have given more credibility
to the WMD doubts?
Yes/No
Monday Morning Quarterback
Can this phrase ever pertain to self-criticism?
Yes/No
Does it always mean you can do a better job?
Yes/No
Thank You
-sm
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
