A bit much, NYT?

i'd say "audacious" could be empirically borne out by asking anyone who knew anything about the attacks. The terrorists hijacked airlines and committed suicide by using them as missiles. That's audacious. In as much as saying Jackie Kennedy looked "saddened" after her husband was assassinated.

Sure, you can strike things and pare things down to a bare bone, but one write-up captured what people saw (9/11) and another is just a recitation of facts. I guess that's traditional journalism, but it's boring to read and seems sterile.

 

The facts are supposed to speak for themselves. It's not a reporter's place to pre-emptively assign a subjective reaction or classification of said facts.

That's not even getting into "most" audacious. All terror attacks are audacious. Ranking them in those terms is pretty pointless. If you mean it in terms of "How could we not have seen this coming?", then ask that. And answer it with more reporting.

If you want to reflect that "people" think it was audacious, then quote them saying it.

 

Yes. Which is bullshit.

 

maybe so, but those soldiers have got to go back into the fight, where they're on the front lines. I'll toss 'em a patronizing adjective to maintain my access

 

It was a dark and stormy night.

 

The drunker I get, the more adjectives I use.