No ANSWER

[Liza Featherstone]

It's so irritating when people feel they can respond to articles that they
haven't really taken the time to read.  Not a single sentence in my article
has anything to do with a "conspiracy theory". And nowhere did I say that
ANSWER was sectarian. I call them liars because I heard them strategizing
about how to lie effectively to the press; I don't know how much more rooted
in the "observable world" one can be. The other statements about them are
based on extensive discussions with activists who have worked with them. The
point of journalism is to go beyond "publicly available evidence." I'm a
journalist, not a writer of press releases. Nothing wrong with writing press
releases, but it's not my job.

What I wrote was a very balanced account of ANSWER's behavior surrounding
this event. I give them lots of credit for A20 protest's diversity and size,
and made clear that it was a great day. And I didn't give the ANSWER
organizers a free pass for their bullshit. (I did go easy on them, quite
frankly, and I think most activists who have worked with them will agree.)
But I guess that was too nuanced for some readers.

Liza


> From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 21:37:07 -0500
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: No ANSWER
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Perelman wrote:
>> 
>> they may be evil, fascist pigs, but, still they organized a successful
>> protest.  Shouldn't they get some credit?
>> -
> 
> I know nothing about WWP really -- but the attacks on it have been so
> mindless, so dependent upon sheer empty statement and accusations that
> could not be demonstrated, that I am about to decide that the best
> definition of "sectarian fool" is "Anti-WWP journalist." Certainly there
> was nothing observable at the demonstration itself which could support
> charges of sectarianism or thuggishness.
> 
> Featherstone's criticism is essentially a conspiracy theory, not an
> account of the observable world.
> 
> I have not seen one single criticism of WWP or of Answer based on
> publicly available evidence. All the criticisms have as their core an
> affirmed personal experience of the critic.
> 
> I think it unutterably foolish for anyone to call themselves a party at
> this time. So without knowing anything, really, about the WWP, I would
> not even consider joining it.
> 
> But they sure as hell pulled off a demo that ought to make their carping
> critics blush in shame.
> 
> Carrol