The phrase “good words,” particularly when qualified by a phrase like “so to speak,” often signals a writer’s attempt to use euphemism, understatement, or carefully chosen language to discuss a sensitive or potentially controversial topic. In the context of the New York Times (NYT), this suggests an adherence to the publication’s journalistic standards of accuracy and objectivity while navigating complex issues with appropriate sensitivity. For example, an article might use “good words” to describe diplomatic efforts during a tense international situation, suggesting a desire to avoid inflammatory language.
Employing precise and considered language is crucial for maintaining credibility and fostering constructive dialogue, especially when dealing with sensitive subjects. Historically, the NYT has played a significant role in shaping public discourse, and its choice of words reflects this responsibility. Careful phrasing allows the newspaper to present information objectively, avoid exacerbating tensions, and encourage thoughtful consideration of complex issues. This is particularly important in the current media landscape, where nuanced discussion can be easily overshadowed by sensationalism.
