Newsweek: There You Go Again
Cidu Bill on Dec 15th 2008
Just a few pages past the less/fewer confusion in the current Newsweek, they give us this: “[This] forces physicians into a Hobson’s choice between providing patients with accurate medical information, and possible license suspension and misdemeanor charges.”
Which unfortunately is not at all what “a Hobson’s choice” means, though it’s true that a number of people (including Newsweek Contributing Editor Dahlia Lithwick) think it does.
And yes, this is important — because a verbal reference such as “Hobson’s choice”has no value unless it means the same thing to everybody.
And just as a matter of principle, if one of the primary writers for a major national magazine makes this sort of mistake,a managing editor should spot and correct it.
Filed in Bill Bickel, Hobson's choice, Newsweek | 31 responses so far
Catlover Dec 15th 2008 at 07:05 am 1
Agreed that is not Hobson’s choice - which I once thought meant having to decide between two bad choices (”the lesser of two evils”), but seems to run closer to the supposed Henry Ford saying, “You can have any color as long as it is black.” Not two options, but one. Not one good option and one bad option, but one or none. You will find the Hobson/”lesser of two evils” mixup throughout the Net (e.g., http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-hobsons-choice.htm). Often, Gary Hobson had to choose between two evils on “Early Edition” once he got tomorrow’s newspaper, today, but that is also different. And people are often uncertain about which principles should be credited to Heisenberg.
Powers Dec 15th 2008 at 07:29 am 2
I’m a fan of Lithwick; I’m surprised she’d make this error (and I think she’d probably appreciate the correction).
Elliott Dec 15th 2008 at 07:54 am 3
When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master - that’s all.’
furrykef Dec 15th 2008 at 09:09 am 4
Which unfortunately is not at all what “a Hobson’s choice” means, though it’s true that a number of people (including Newsweek Contributing Editor Dahlia Lithwick) think it does.
You mean “think it is“.
(Or perhaps “think it does mean that”.) It sounds strange to end with just “does”, since that wasn’t the main verb you were contrasting with.
(If somebody points out at this point that I just ended a sentence with a preposition, I will hit them. Great, now I’m using singular “they”, too…)
- Kef
Jon88 Dec 15th 2008 at 11:24 am 5
It is mildly arguable that “possible license suspension and misdemeanor charges” might be construed as “nothing,” but only mildly. And not by me.
James Dec 15th 2008 at 11:32 am 6
Furrykef - actually, “think it does” is correct. The phrase “a Hobson’s choice” is in parentheses, so the correct verb is “means.” Thus “does” (as in “does mean”) is the correct verb.
Mark in Boston Dec 15th 2008 at 12:43 pm 7
So what IS the word when you’re faced with a dilemma of two choices, each bad? Oh, yeah, that’s it: DILEMMA!
Now, how often in life are you actually faced with a Hobson’s choice? Rarely. Choosing a cable TV provider is one (if you’re just getting it for your house; the town selectmen have a choice of which competitor will become your sole provider).
I bet if we got together we could write a quiz based on these. Let’s start:
1. Hobson’s choice means:
a. Two alternatives, both evil.
b. “Choice” of one.
2. A Nimrod is:
a. a mighty hunter.
b. an idiot.
3. The “lion’s share” is:
a. More than half of it.
b. All of it.
4. A factoid is:
a. a trivial but true fact.
b. a false fact-like proposition planted for publicity purposes.
5. A helpmeet is
a. A helpmate, a helper.
b. Not a word. “A help meet for him” means “A helper suitable for him.”
6. A quantum leap is
a. A change of gigantic proportions, like moving from a four-room house to a forty-room house.
b. The smallest possible change that there can be, like like an electron in an atom moving from one energy level to the next energy level.
Matthew Dec 15th 2008 at 04:02 pm 8
Mark, I don’t know the answers to all your questions, but I know that there’s an important element left out of the answers to #6. Part of being a quantum leap would be the leap’s unpredictability or uncontrollability. In addition, question #2 is contradictory: A nimrod is an idiot, while Nimrod was a mighty hunter.
Back to Dahlia Lithwick’s mistake and the oversight by Newsweek’s editors. Lithwick is not very bright. I read several of her columns in Slate, and asked that she not cover the Supreme Court, that there may be another field for which she was better suited. Now, she is occasionally on N.P.R.’s Day To Day, where she continues in the vein of superficial examination. If you want to know what Antonin Scalia eats for breakfast, then Lithwick is your woman. If you want to know the ramifications, meaning, & complexity of a Supreme Court decision, then read (or listen) elsewhere. I miss Linda Greenhouse.
furrykef Dec 15th 2008 at 05:13 pm 9
Furrykef - actually, “think it does” is correct. The phrase “a Hobson’s choice” is in parentheses, so the correct verb is “means.” Thus “does” (as in “does mean”) is the correct verb.
Eh? It’s not in parentheses. The only parentheses were around the phrase “including Newsweek Contributing Editor Dahlia Lithwick”.
Anyway, the verb “means” is not the main verb of the first part of the sentence; it’s in a subordinate clause started by “what”. The clause is subordinate because the word “what” is the object (technically speaking, the complement) of “is”. The part starting with “though it’s what…” contrasts against the main clause of the first part of the sentence, and the main verb is “is”.
- Kef
furrykef Dec 15th 2008 at 05:16 pm 10
Or if we wish to avoid technical linguistic terms, compare the phrase “That is not correct, though it’s true that a lot of people think it is.” My version of the phrase is grammatically equivalent; just replace “correct” with “what ‘a Hobson’s choice’ means”.
Alexandra Erin Dec 15th 2008 at 05:34 pm 11
Oh, so now all of a sudden the etymology and origin of a word/phrase matter more than modern usage fads.
Alexandra Erin Dec 15th 2008 at 05:48 pm 12
Joking aside, I do think this is pretty egregious, as there is no purpose to the reference except to say “I R SMRT”.
Even if it were a valid assumption that every person who reads it would have the same understanding of the phrase as the writer did, nobody reading it is going to be scratching their head and going, “Huh? I don’t understand why this is bad… oh, wait, it’s a Hobson’s choice! That explains it.” It doesn’t add information or context to the article. It merely pads it out with pseudo-intellectual fluff.
And, given that most people will only encounter the phrase “Hobson’s choice” in this sort of situation, they’ll pick up the intended meaning from context, and some of them will go on and repeat this obscure-sounding reference in situations where the meaning will be clear in order that they may themselves appear to be SMRT.
Nathaniel Dec 15th 2008 at 06:01 pm 13
“[This] forces physicians into a Hobson’s choice between providing patients with accurate medical information, and possible license suspension and misdemeanor charges.”
Wait, so the physicians have a choice between telling the truth, or having their license suspended? Why is this a problem? Did they perhaps mean INaccurate medical information?
Arthur Dec 15th 2008 at 06:18 pm 14
Nathaniel, the doctors might have their licenses lifted unless they dispence inaccurate information. Here’s the article:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/172593?from=rss
Kevin Andresen Dec 15th 2008 at 06:23 pm 15
Therefore, “Hobson’s choice” is not the problem term, “between” is.
And then, perhaps your favored Lithwick didn’t make the error and an editor did. (I nervously wonder if it was an automatic grammar check.)
Cidu Bill Dec 15th 2008 at 06:30 pm 16
I went back and checked, and the article does indeed say “accurate.” That entire paragraph is clear as mud, and if I were dong the editing on it I’d take the Gordian Knot approach.
Mark in Boston Dec 15th 2008 at 07:28 pm 17
So, Matthew, if a nimrod is an idiot and Nimrod was a mighty hunter, then Hobson’s Choice is no choice at all and a hobson’s choice is a choice among bad alternatives.
Right?
Kevin Andresen Dec 15th 2008 at 08:12 pm 18
I take my idea back. If being a doctor of female medicine (whatever branch it is) required the taking of all patients, including abortion patients, then being such a doctor would practically guarantee either malpractice or misdemeanor penalties. It’s not quite getting a random horse or no horse. I’m guessing there’s also no such requirement.
Oh, and:
Great reference from Bill.
Spiritcatcher Dec 15th 2008 at 10:10 pm 19
as a non-native speaker i first gotta thank Mark in Boston for defining both meanings ^^ i wasn’t exactly clear what the fuzz is about before…
so … who the frig was this Hobson guy ? i mean, where did this phrase come from ?
Cidu Bill Dec 15th 2008 at 10:24 pm 20
Hobson was, supposedly, an English livery stable owner who insisted on lending out his horses in order: You want a horse, you take the next one in line or you don’t get one. So “a Hobson’s choice” is essentially “take it or leave it,” or “this choice or no choice” — not, as Ms. Lithwick seems to believe, a choice between two alternatives.
Matthew Dec 15th 2008 at 10:25 pm 21
No, Mark.
Alexandra, your remarks don’t make sense. Please articulate. Thanks.
Spiritcatch, Hobson, around 1600, ran a livery stable, hiring out horses, and he insisted that his customers take the next horses in line, rather than the horses they might want. Thus, Hobson’s choice pretends to be a choice but is no choice.
DSkinner Dec 15th 2008 at 11:04 pm 22
Can Newsweek, Time, NYT, AP, et al. please die faster?
CIDU Bill Dec 15th 2008 at 11:40 pm 23
Just to tweak your explanation a bit, Matthew: A Hobson’s choice doesn’t pretend to be a choice.
Spiritcatcher Dec 16th 2008 at 12:18 am 24
erm … to me it seems like the original Hobson’s choice is a *third* type of choice :
a) choice between two equally bad alternatives (”pest or cholera”)
b) no choice at all (”just sugarcoating, you got no say in this”)
c) choice between yes and no. (”take it or leave it”)
S.P. Charles Dec 16th 2008 at 12:24 am 25
Nope, just c: no alternatives, no sugar-coating, just “my way or the highway”
Miss Appropriate Dec 16th 2008 at 03:25 am 26
Hobson gave his customers a choice between taking the horse he offered or else walking on foot; therefore, he did technically offer two choices, right? It’s not that he didn’t give them a choice, he just didn’t offer multiple selections within either of the 2 options.
Wouldn’t the sentence in question in the article have worked if it read, “This forces law-abiding physicians into a Hobson’s choice between providing patients with inaccurate medical information, and not performing abortions at all.” That makes it the same kind of “my way or the highway” choice, right?
Powers Dec 16th 2008 at 10:15 am 27
There’s clearly something wrong with the sentence as written, even without the “hobson’s” part:
“[This] forces physicians into a choice between providing patients with accurate medical information, and possible license suspension and misdemeanor charges.”
Well, hell, that’s not much of a choice. What physician would ever choose the second option?
Obviously, the choice described in the article is between providing *inaccurate* information and possible license suspension. Whether the error was in writing or in editing I could not begin to say, but there’s obviously an error here that goes beyond the use of the word “Hobson’s”.
Miss Appropriate’s suggestion may be what Lithwick was thinking, which then got corrupted accidentally in the editing or writing process. Or she might have been saying that the “license suspension/malpractice” route was no real option at all, thus creating a virtual Hobson’s choice.
Sigh.
All that said, I have to address Matthew’s post. I object to his insult of Lithwick, as well as to his objections to here Slate column. The point of the Jurisprudence column is not to analyze Supreme Court decisions, but to report on the goings on inside the courtroom. If you want legal analysis of the multi-page opinions issued by the Court, there are plenty of places to get that. But there are very few sources to report on the goings-on during arguments. Lithwick does a fine job of recording and distilling an hour of argument into a pithy and easy to read analysis.
So there.
Matthew Dec 16th 2008 at 12:18 pm 28
For Powers, on Dahlia Lithwick’s work: I shouldn’t’ve said that Lithwick was not bright. I have never met her. I can say that Lithwick as writer & commentator is not very bright. Powers’s defending her pieces by drawing a bright line between “report[ing]… the goings on [sic] inside the courtroom” and analyzing Supreme Court decisions, truly circumscribes Lithwick & artificially separates into two areas what many writers & reporters on the Supreme Court can cover in their articles. There is no inherent separation between reporting the goings-on & examining the decisions. Powers’s defense of Lithwick really makes my point.
As to Powers’s end claims about Lithwick’s work, I would agree that, if you don’t mind semi-literate prose, the work is easy to read. Pithy analysis, however? No. It doesn’t really matter, though. Newsweek, Day To Day, Slate—Lithwick is on her way. Soon she’ll publish a book. Those of us interested in the Supreme Court will be putting up with her superficial thinking & writing for the next forty years.
CIDU Bill, I have three dictionaries around me. All of them claim that Hobson’s choice an apparently free choice that is actually no choice. “The customer can get his car in any color he wants as long as it’s black.” It’s not worth any more quibbling, however. We’re close enough.
devildan Dec 16th 2008 at 02:55 pm 29
To quote an old joke:
“We always had two choices for dinner: Take it or leave it.”
Powers Dec 17th 2008 at 10:05 am 30
Ah, so Matthew’s analysis is the be-all and end-all. I see.
To make another point, though, given that she describes the argument in the Court on a timely basis, it would be rather difficult for her to review the decisions, which don’t come out for months. I suppose she could review the decisions while referring back to her notes on what happened during arguments, but I prefer the latter to be a little more real time.
Matthew Dec 17th 2008 at 12:30 pm 31
Powers, on these comment lists, CIDU Bill is always the be-all, as he instigates the topic, and any end-all is illusory, considering that anyone can append another remark.
I haven’t read anything by Dahlia Lithwick for months, so, considering your defense of her work, I am reading her piece, in Slate, on Eric Holder. The writing isn’t bad, though it has the failings of Time-ese (e.g., short sentences, continued with a new sentence beginning w/ a conjunction, rather than simply combining or subordinating) along with Lithwick’s own tin ear, ending a paragraph on Michael Mukasey with a sentence about his recent collapse, though that event has no relation to the paragraph.
The piece, however, is too brief. If we really want to examine the challenges facing Holder’s Department of Justice, then we must do more than summarize them in a paragraph. Like many pieces in newsmagazines, this one sets up the problem superficially, and then drops it. Lithwick is simply a product of her product: She writes shallow pieces that are coveted by shallow content-providers. W/in the realm of this slightness, however, Lithwick does not struggle to include some depth but is satisfied to be one of the slight mediocrity supplying us with information.
At the same time, Lithwick shows a nice handling of avoiding the split infinitive.