Skip to content

The deep and nuanced complexity of one word

Published on 19 Comments on The deep and nuanced complexity of one word

This is from the New York Times today:

Yes, seriously. To dig into "complex" views about the election, the Times asked voters for one word. God only knows what they'd call it if they asked for ten words.

19 thoughts on “The deep and nuanced complexity of one word”

  2. Ken Rhodes

    Actually, I think of several one-word descriptors that are appropriate for a highly complex situation with wildly variant results:

    Imponderable
    Unknowable
    Worrisome

  3. Dana Decker

    New York Times "one word" approach is multifaceted, intricate, and byzantine. In other words, too much to deal with.

    Far superior is asking people to describe the 2024 election in one letter.

    Simple. Clean. No concerns about varying definitions.

    For me, I'd describe the election as "G"

    (Almost wrote "R" but that's an emotional response. "G" is more rational.)

  4. dspcole

    Which is exactly why I let my subscription to The Times lapse 4 weeks ago. I just couldn’t stand it anymore. Sad.

  8. Altoid

    Input single words, output wordcloud graphic, yield = several weeks of vapid "analysis," workday over before 2 pm. Repeat by region or state as desired.

  9. different_name

    I'm pretty much done with the Times. I kind of wish I could pay for only the non-political content, which is still sometimes interesting.

    Because these days the political side is Fox News for self-hating liberals.

    Their calculated cruelty directed at trans folks was the last straw for me. Fuck them and their deceptive gaslighting, pathetic Clinton-hatred and ongoing Nazi-normalization project.

    Not a dime from me.

  11. KenSchulz

    Anything — anything! but in-depth reporting on candidates’ positions, likely initiatives, policies, likely appointees and advisors. You know, all that boring stuff about how the candidates might actually govern.

Comments are closed.