Nader and the Etiquette of Epithets

A QUESTION OF EPITHET ETIQUETTE

By Chris Daly

The re-emergence of the recidivist presidential-election spoiler Ralph Nader raises political considerations, which, in turn, raise journalistic considerations.

Of those, one of the most fascinating is watching the results of the agony that political reporters (and their editors) go through in deciding how to identify Nader. Especially on the “first reference,” journalists must choose which of the many possible epithets to apply to the gaunt gadfly.

Just today, I found this sampler:

“Consumer advocate Ralph Nader…” …. Used by Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, Newsday, Reuters, and others. By far the most popular epithet, perhaps because it sounds serious and neutral, although both points could certainly be argued.

“Controversial consumer advocate…” Used by the BBC, presumably to distinguish RN from the ranks of non-controversial consumer advocates.

“the veteran American consumer-rights activist” – Al Jazeera.net. Is “veteran” a synonym for “aging”? Or is it a code-phrase for “even older than McCain”?

The AP and the New York Times both paid Nader the compliment of dispensing with any identifier at all, just invoking the name in their lead paragraphs:

Actually, in the Times, writer Sarah Wheaton chose to “back in” to the story, beginning with a two-graf version of recent political history:

When Ralph Nader ran as a third-party candidate in 2000 and drew 96,837 votes in Florida, he was widely derided by Democrats, who saw him as a spoiler who siphoned crucial votes from Al Gore and tipped the election to George W. Bush. When he ran again in 2004, Democrats in many states tried to keep him off their ballots.
On Sunday, Mr. Nader officially announced that he would seek the presidency as a third-party candidate one more time — driven in part by his frustration over the efforts to thwart his last run.

This shrewd approach has the advantage of handing off the responsibility for choosing epithets to “Democrats,” who are allowed to characterize Mr. Nader, sparing Ms. Wheaton of appearing to describe him directly.


On the Web, of course, most blogs are more candid (and more vicious), to wit:

“longtime consumer advocate … still loathed by many Democrats” – Huffington Post.

“Bush’s Chief Enabler” – Josh Marshall on TPM.



Actually, I believe Nader poses a special case for the mainstream media. He is someone about whom I assume every reporter and editor has strong feelings – feelings that they are determined to disguise. It’s an issue that isn’t discussed very much, perhaps because it would trigger the bigger discussion about politics and “objectivity” that no one in a newsroom has the appetite (or the time) for.

Personally, I have no use for Nader and his endless egoism. Much as I would be open to the idea of viable third- and fourth-party candidates, the fact is, Nader is the not the one. Between elections, he does next to nothing to build a party that might make him anything more than a spoiler. Then comes the late-winter of a presidential election year, and he’s back, hectoring and lecturing.

If Nader ends up getting McCain elected and extending Republican rule, that would have to be considered, in his long career, the (there’s no other word for it) ... nadir.