Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
On Sat, 3 Jun 2006, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
Mike Miller wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jun 2006, Vern Green wrote:
So how about a little more information to debunk Kennedy's article. At
Salon.com there is an article by Farhad Majoo. Not exactly the bastion
of conservatism over there at Salon, but his article is pretty
interesting.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/03/kennedy/
Did you see any of the user comments? They hate him.
My impression is that the original article was not without its
distortions, and this new article tends to support that. Quite likely
the new article has its own distortions as well. But how am I supposed
to know?
That's a nice summary of the way the news media deals with things these
days. Twenty years ago, if someone said "2+2=5," he would be corrected,
but now we bring someone on to say that "2+2=4" and the reporter says
"Fascinating controversy. Who is right? Which is true. You decide!" I
guess it helps them to bring in more advertising revenue. (This problem
is affecting us in the "debate" about evolution and creationism and in the
"debate" about global warming.)
The problem with this state of affairs is that the public loses. They are
confused about what is going on. It takes too much time to hunt up the
original sources and do your own research. Investigative reporters are
shirking their responsibility -- what was once called a "sacred trust."
I'm waiting to see the respectable papers weigh in on Kennedy's article.
If it is full of distortions and half-truths, they should say so. There
are facts out there and the reporters from Washington Post, NY Times, LA
Times, etc., should agree on those facts. Let's give them a few more days
before we accuse them of abandoning us again.
Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion