Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Peter Feldstein's avatar

Thank you very much for explaining --I appreciate your response very much. I understand your thoughts, and do realize that your audience is undoubtedly quite sophisticated. But realizing that, I wrote because I believe that the framing makes a difference in how people think and talk about these things (viz., Frank Luntz, and the damage he's succeeded in doing in this regard). Maybe I'm overly idealistic, but I think every little bit of proper framing helps. Anyhow, how about " the Manhattan election interference case"? As for "the GA RICO case", at least that carries an undertone of mob activity. "Hush money case" sounds a little like the sort of thing that lots of folks (men in particular) just snicker at -- maybe even wistfully.

Expand full comment
Peter Feldstein's avatar

Mr. Kurtz, I again find it curious that you insist on calling it a "hush money case". Is that really what you think is most significant about this case? I get that a hush money case for a politician is not a good look, or at least that you recall the days when that was true. But even Justice Merchan, in his D&O yesterday, called it what it is: "The charges arise from allegations that Defendant attempted to

conceal an illegal scheme to influence the 2016 presidential election." I for one find your framing odd, and quite disappointing. Could you explain your thinking, beyond saying that you recall those golden days of yesteryear?

Expand full comment
13 more comments...

No posts