A Nattering Nabob Calls it Quits

Bye bye Bill.

William Safire bid adieu yesterday as a New York Times columnist. We are not great fans of his column. His politics, obviously, are too right for our taste; he might be one of the last Republican pundits still certain the U.S. will still find WMDs in Iraq (wouldn't yah know, they're always in the last place you look). Moreover, he is hardly a GOP insider any longer, making much of his prognosticating punditry inconsequential.

Despite his sometimes scurrilous opinions, however, Bill Safire has always been a clever and succinct writer. What else would you expect from the guy who gave Spiro Agnew the line about "nattering nabobs of negativism"? For that alone, we will miss reading his stuff ... although, don't get us wrong, we'll forge on somehow. This ain't exactly akin to the death of Johnny Carson (who, by the way, is lovingly eulogized by Steve Martin in an op-ed in today's New York Times).

But we digress ...

We will give Safire props, too, for his final piece in the Times, a manual on how to read a column. Of his 12 tips for the discerning reader, we offer our favorites:

Never look for the story in the lede. Reporters are required to put what's happened up top, but the practiced pundit places a nugget of news, even a startling insight, halfway down the column, directed at the politiscenti. When pressed for time, the savvy reader starts there.

Do not be taken in by "insiderisms." Fledgling columnists, eager to impress readers with their grasp of journalistic jargon, are drawn to such arcane spellings as "lede." Where they lede, do not follow.

Don't fall for the "snapper" device. To give an aimless harangue the illusion of shapeliness, some of us begin (forget "lede") with a historical allusion or revealing anecdote, then wander around for 600 words before concluding by harking back to an event or quotation in the opening graph. This stylistic circularity gives the reader a snappy sense of completion when the pundit has not figured out his argument's conclusion.

Cherchez la source. Ingest no column (or opinionated reporting labeled "analysis") without asking: Cui bono? And whenever you see the word "respected" in front of a name, narrow your eyes. You have never read "According to the disrespected (whomever)."

Resist swaydo-intellectual writing. Only the hifalutin trap themselves into "whomever" and only the tort bar uses the Latin for "who benefits?" Columnists who show off should surely shove off. (And avoid all asinine alliteration.)

Do not be suckered by the unexpected. Pundits sometimes slip a knuckleball into their series of curveballs: for variety's sake, they turn on comrades in ideological arms, inducing apostasy-admirers to gush "Ooh, that's so unpredictable." Such pushmi-pullyu advocacy is permissible for Clintonian liberals or libertarian conservatives but is too often the mark of the too-cute contrarian.

Perhaps an alternative title for that final rule could be The Christopher Hitchens Hitch. Of course, all the other rules could be named in honor of George Will.