Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • Freed Up
    • The Soho Forum Debates
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Print Subscription
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Hair-Splitter Nitpicked

Matt Welch | 11.30.2004 3:36 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Jack Shafer reference-checks William Safire.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: If the Devil is Six, then Ridge is Seven

Matt Welch is an editor at large at Reason.

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (9)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. wellfellow   21 years ago

    Please, all Shafer did was verify that the term used by Safire wasn't journalistic vernacular, which says nothing about the accuracy of the charge.

  2. Ruthless   21 years ago

    "keeper" versus spiked

    And to think Safire has been known to criticize his colleague and my sweetie, Maureen Dowd, for using esoteric words.

  3. PapayaSF   21 years ago

    I'm not surprised Safire knows words that other people don't: he's been in the business a long time (he's probably got 20 years on any of the journalists Shafer asked), and he writes books on language, for heaven's sake. And, as wellfellow points out, Shafer seems to think if he can't find enough references to the term, that he's somehow proved the practice is rare or non-existent. Here's a recent one: the LA Times' late sexual harassment hit on Arnold, just before the recall election.

  4. Morat   21 years ago

    You are aware that just BECAUSE a story comes at a politically oppurtune time doesn't mean that the story's release was politically timed, right?

  5. PapayaSF   21 years ago

    Morat: It's not conclusive, but there's some evidence that the LA Times' stories were politically timed.

  6. Tim Higgins   21 years ago

    Wellfellow,

    See title of post. Thank you.

  7. Steve   21 years ago

    Papa,

    There's much stronger evidence than that:

    http://www.jillstewart.net/php/issues/issue1014.php

  8. wellfellow   21 years ago

    Tim,

    Point taken, however, if the thrust of the story had been that Safire was merely being nitpicked, that'd be rather banal. Let us not pretend that Shafer was genuinly interested in etymology. So, Tim, read between the lines. Thank you.

    Morat, did anyone suggest that?

  9. Tim Higgins   21 years ago

    wellfellow,

    I may have misunderstood your remark - did you mean it to be directed at Shafer (I took it to be directed at Welch)? I agree entirely that Shafer's article was petty, and I'd infer from the headline that Welch agrees. In fact, Shafer is "nitpicking," but that is a criticism, not a description. I'm sure Shafer thought (foolishly) that he was casting doubt on Safire's conclustion. In any case, my bad if your remark was directed at Shafer and not Welch.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Mike Johnson Wants To Spare ICE the Hassle of Getting the Right Warrant Before Forcibly Entering a Home

Damon Root | 2.5.2026 7:00 AM

Brickbat: You Can Check Out Any Time You Like, but You Can Never Leave

Charles Oliver | 2.5.2026 4:00 AM

Drug Dogs Should Not Be Unleashed To Authorize Apartment Searches, a SCOTUS Brief Argues

Jacob Sullum | 2.4.2026 4:35 PM

The Private Sector Handles Hunger Better Than Mamdani Could

Jack Nicastro | 2.4.2026 3:55 PM

This California Family Is Suing for the Right To Drill for Oil on Their Own Property

Jeff Luse | 2.4.2026 3:41 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2026 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

I WANT FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS!

Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.

Make a donation today! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks