April 13, 2007
Let's just say he made regular deposits
I don't keep up with the blah-blahs of the World Bank or its president, Paul Wolfowitz, but a story atop today's Nytimes.com promised enough scandal to hold my attention. Paul, it seems, has a problem:
WASHINGTON, April 12 — Paul D. Wolfowitz’s tenure as president of the World Bank was thrown into turmoil on Thursday by the disclosure that he had helped arrange a pay raise for his companion at the time of her transfer from the bank to the State Department, where she remained on the bank payroll.
Maybe it's because I haven't been following this story, but the description of someone as "his companion" seemed unsatisfactory. What in the hell does it mean? Is this some gal he's boning? An old hiking buddy? A nurse that changes his adult diapers? A companion could be anything. The next graf isn't any more helpful, explaining that Paul " apologized for his role in the raise and transfer of Shaha Ali Riza, his companion." You have to get down to the 11th graf before the story partially explains itself: Paul and Shaha "had a personal relationship," it says. Still amazingly vague -- I have a personal relationship with my mailman, technically speaking -- but I get the point: Their relationship, at times, did not involve clothes. Ok. Got it.
This is a tricky thing for reporters, and I've had to navigate it myself: When it's clear two people are romantically involved, but neither of them have said to you that they're dating, and their relationship must be referenced in the story, what do you call them? Are they boyfriend and girlfriend? That seems silly, and presumptuous: Maybe they're not exclusive. Maybe they're only good for booty calls. You never know.
I surveyed some other media outlets to see how they first describe Paul and Shaha. Some results:
The Guardian: Shaha is "his romantic partner"
Associated Press: Shaha is "a close female friend"
Washington Post: Shaha is "a bank employee with whom he is romantically involved"
USA Today is similar: "a bank employee he was romantically involved with"
Los Angeles Times: Shaha is "his girlfriend"
Slate: Shaha is "his longtime companion"
Posted by Jason Feifer at April 13, 2007 09:04 AM
Comments
She's his nappy hair ho'
Posted by Don at April 13, 2007 10:03 AM
His longtime companion sounds like they're talking about a dog. No wonder so many people over there seem to get married young - it makes it so much easier when you can refer to your fiance or husband than to try and work out whether you havea boyfriend/partner/companion/man-friend/life partner (eugh)/other half.
Posted by izzie at April 14, 2007 09:34 AM
Jason,
Slate shares your concern:
http://www.slate.com/id/2164651/fr/rss/
Posted by Berto at April 20, 2007 08:53 AM
The Economist: Shaha is "his girlfriend."
Doesn't he seem a little old for a girlfriend?
Posted by Sara at April 21, 2007 05:52 PM
Post A Comment |