4 ms·
The OpEd reads more like a speech. I'd assume there are some publicly available speeches (or videos with subtitles) that can be analysed instead. Some articles
by everdev 8y ago
The OpEd reads more like a speech. I'd assume there are some publicly available speeches (or videos with subtitles) that can be analysed instead.
Some articles mention that anonymous sources specifically take note of the speech patterns of other people so they can use those to throw off the trail. I'd be very surprised if the author didn't at least try to do that, or agree to have the NYT rewrite each sentence while preserving the meaning.
It's an interesting exercise and can and might be able to rule out some authors, but it seems like someone harboring such opinions and wishing to express them to some extent (and has with others -- in the resistance) will be discovered in short order.
Outing this person might be an even bigger story than the OpEd itself. But I put my money on old fashion journalism rather than text analysis.
- alex_anglin 8y agoPresumably the candidates for consideration have speech writers and staff who would either write a given speech outright or influence it heavily. So, that would likely rule out any speeches related to their position.
- kevinmchugh 8y agoThe speechwriters and staff are in some cases valid guesses in their own right, but don't have a unique corpus.
- c256 8y agoIn the podcast interview (“The Daily”, also from the nyt), the contact inside the NYT says pretty clearly that they didn’t rewrite anything, to avoid detection or otherwise. I believe the quote was something like “if they write something that’s used to identify themselves, it is what it is”.