Alfred Glenstein
18-11-2005, 22:53
It is easy to just check this guys facts and his context and prove him wrong and throw his article out the window. But that would leave unaddressed the motivations and inherent biases that brought him to his conclusions. When a report is wrong about something, and it errs in favor of the right wing on each and every count, there is more to it than just an honest accident.
http://www.chieftain.com/editorial/1131867089/5
This Valerie Plame name game has gotten well past the point of being ridiculous. You are, no doubt, sick of hearing about the whole issue. Apologies for bringing it up at Sunday breakfast but a quick review would seem to be in order just to set things straight.
We could easily throw facts at this, about how significant this affair is and what it may imply about the legitimacy of the Iraq war, and then he's out the window.
But I don't think that addresses the real issue. There was some conclusion here that was pre-determined that made the reporter feel like it was ok to present this view as if it is so acceptable and obvious that no facts were needed to back it up. (And I grant that assertions ARE ok for obvious things. There should be no burden on anyone to prove that 9-11 happened, when they talk about it, for example.) But I don't think that he was justified in just asserting this ground without attempting to prove it first, as it is an issue very much up in the air.
So what is the best, most complete way, to explain how this article went off track?
http://www.chieftain.com/editorial/1131867089/5
This Valerie Plame name game has gotten well past the point of being ridiculous. You are, no doubt, sick of hearing about the whole issue. Apologies for bringing it up at Sunday breakfast but a quick review would seem to be in order just to set things straight.
We could easily throw facts at this, about how significant this affair is and what it may imply about the legitimacy of the Iraq war, and then he's out the window.
But I don't think that addresses the real issue. There was some conclusion here that was pre-determined that made the reporter feel like it was ok to present this view as if it is so acceptable and obvious that no facts were needed to back it up. (And I grant that assertions ARE ok for obvious things. There should be no burden on anyone to prove that 9-11 happened, when they talk about it, for example.) But I don't think that he was justified in just asserting this ground without attempting to prove it first, as it is an issue very much up in the air.
So what is the best, most complete way, to explain how this article went off track?