4 was easy. I could probably have guessed the others through those multiple-choice skills we all have.
I don't understand this post. What was so distinctly Foxish about 4?
Calling her "Hillary" instead of "Clinton"?
Saying the creator of the ad "steps up" (active voice), as opposed to being "unmasked", "identified", or "revealed" (passive voice)?
What was so distinctly Foxish about 4?
The emphasis on Hillary as Big Brother.
Making an effort to say 'Hillary' right next to 'Big Brother'. Not an unfair description of the ad, but one that reinforces its attack on her.
Also "Steps Up" implicitly commends the creater of the ad which pegs her as Big Brother.
What was so distinctly Foxish about 4?
Also the way in which "steps up" connotes (for me, anyway) taking credit/responsibility rather than the more blame-heavy "unmasked" or "identified." It's like the creator has claimed a prize.
(Aside: JM, were you thinking of the mad scientist from Nightmare Before Christmas when you were trying to identify your doppleRudy yesterday?)
Actually, I thought the CNN headline was the worst, but the contrast between them all was interesting.
Also the use of "Hillary" instead of "Clinton".
Dr. Finklestein? A decent match, but not what I was trying to think of.
I got 4 right, but none of the others.
Certainly the MSNBC header communicates the most information with the least likelihood to mislead.
I also solved #4 immediately and didn't care about any of the others. Why is CNN's so bad?
The analysis of #4 above is, I think, particularly apropos to Saisegly's post the other day about how the ad can be misconstrued.
Why is CNN's so bad?
When I read it, for a moment I wasn't even sure if it was about the ad, or about someone who had stalked HRC--"web attacker" seemed over the top.
"Unmasked" is pretty NYT.
NYT would have been "critics say identity of Clinton ad creator raises questions"
You know what's cool? That highligting trick.