Detecting semantic hijinks

Ann Althouse is a self-professed "detector of semantic hijinks," and proves it (to me) as she detects the semantic hijinks of the New York Times in their pieces today on the Trump "empire" and the Clinton Foundation.

Putting the articles together makes an implicit statement that the NYT is applying its investigative powers in a professional journalistic fashion to both candidates and delving into the questions about the nature of their wealth and their financial dealings. Putting the Trump article in larger print and on top conveys the impression that the investigation into him turned up more serious problems.

So does the language used.

The words "Trump's Empire" parallel "Foundation Donor's." It doesn't even say "Clinton Foundation." The name "Clinton" is used in "Clinton's Candidacy," which faces "obstacles." The active characters are the donors, raising obstacles for her candidacy (not even directly for her, but for the abstraction that is her candidacy). See all that distancing? She's essentially the hero of that headline, with a worthy goal and facing obstacles from other characters. Read the finer print too. See how she's the hero? A classic hero is even named: Achilles! And speaking of names, none of the donors are named. You have to click through to find the worrisome list: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Brunei and Algeria.

But Trump has an "empire" — that doesn't sound American — and his empire has "hazy ties" — sounds spurious! — and $650 million in debt. That sounds like a lot of money! No dollar amount is specified in the headline or the squib about the Clinton foundation. The Trump debt is presumably owed to banks as part of a huge, ongoing real estate enterprise, so I don't know what's nefarious about that, but I guess something is "hazy," and it looks like he might have grossly misstated the debt in the federal electing filing, though the use of the word "apparent" — in "nearly twice the amount apparent in his federal election filing" — makes me (a detector of semantic hijinks) suspect semantic hijinks.

So, let's finally click through and see how these 2 stories compare. The one on Hillary is called "Foundation Ties Bedevil Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign." This is by Amy Chozick and Steve Eder.

Ann reads the 2 stories, observes the semantic hijinks, and concludes,

Trump has been building his family company over many decades, accumulating great wealth. The Clinton family has amassed wealth — not as much, but within a short time and using the prestige and influence of the past presidency of the husband and the promise of a future presidency for the wife.

If you ran a newspaper, like the NYT, how would you balance coverage of the 2 stories? I'd say the Clinton problem is more worrisome, but the Trump article is longer and more detailed, which justifies giving it top billing on the front page. It's almost as if the Clinton article was generated to go along with it, to give the appearance of balance the in-depth investigation of Trump.

Read more here.