The MSM gets caught getting lazy

A few weeks ago, I noted that astute bloggers had figured out that the NY Times' Bob Herbert has been stuck in a rut for years, often recycling sentences and, even, whole paragraphs. It turns out Herbert isn't the only Times writer who has dug himself a shallow little rhetorical ditch. FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) has discovered that, for almost three years now, the Times' Thomas Friedman has been reporting that the next six months will be the most important in Iraq. Which six months, you ask? The six months following the date of any given byline:

"The next six months in Iraq—which will determine the prospects for democracy-building there—are the most important six months in U.S. foreign policy in a long, long time." (The New York Times, November 30, 2003)

"It might be over in a week, it might be over in a month, it might be over in six months." (NPR's Fresh Air, June 3, 2004)

"What we're gonna find out, Bob, in the next six to nine months is whether we have liberated a country or uncorked a civil war." (CBS's Face the Nation, September 3, 2004)

"Iraq will be won or lost in the next few months." (The New York Times, November 28, 2004)

"I think we're in a six-month window here." (NBC's Meet the Press, September 25, 2005)

"Maybe the cynical Europeans were right. Maybe this neighborhood is just beyond transformation. That will become clear in the next few months as we see just what kind of minority the Sunnis in Iraq intend to be." (The New York Times, September 28, 2005)

"I think the next six months really are going to determine whether this country is going to collapse into three parts or more or whether it's going to come together." (CBS's Face the Nation, December 18, 2005)

"We're at the beginning of I think the decisive I would say six months in Iraq." (PBS's Charlie Rose Show, December 20, 2005)

"The only thing I am certain of is that in the wake of this election, Iraq will be what Iraqis make of it—and the next six months will tell us a lot." (The New York Times, December 21, 2005)

"I think that we're going to know after six to nine months whether this project has any chance of succeeding." (Oprah Winfrey Show, January 23, 2006)

"I think we're in the end game there, in the next three to six months." (CBS, January 31, 2006)

"The next six to nine months are going to tell whether we can produce a decent outcome in Iraq." (NBC's Today, March 2, 2006)

"I think we're in the end game in the sense it's going to be decided in the next weeks or months whether there's an Iraq there worth investing in." (CNN, April 23, 2006)

"Well, I think that we're going to find out, Chris, in the next year to six months—probably sooner—whether a decent outcome is possible there." (MSNBC's Hardball, May 11, 2006)

In 2002, when I was still voting Democrat, I had the opportunity to hear Thomas Friedman speak. I remember little of his speech except for one point. He thought invading Iraq was a great idea — as long as the Democrats did it. He didn't believe that the Republicans were capable of the humanity and the imagination to take on nation-building. It must be bitter gall to him every day that Bush is a visionary who does believe in nation building, while the Democrats have turned out to be opportunists and defeatists (not that he'd ever admit that).

Hat tip: Daniel Pipes and a friend who sent me the link to Daniel Pipes.