Broad Attacks!

So, this morning's NYT headline about last night's debate is: Clinton Uses Sharp Attacks in Tense Debate.

I'm not even going to quibble about that interpretation of what happened. I just want to point out that last night, the same article had this headline:

Hmm. How odd that they'd switch from one word to another that's almost its antonym, in order to convey the same message.

I mean, here are a few definitions of "broad," courtesy of

  • widely diffused; open; full
  • not limited or narrow; of extensive range or scope
  • unconfined; free; unrestrained
And here are a few definitions of "sharp":
  • having a thin cutting edge or a fine point
  • clearly defined; distinct
  • distinct or marked, as a contrast
So, if her "attacks" were actually "sharp," why on earth would a different headline writer have called them "broad" last night?

Oh, right.

a. Usually Offensive. a woman.
b. a promiscuous woman.
For fuck's sake. They're not even trying to hide it anymore.

Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.

blog comments powered by Disqus