> Your guy ought to be more relaxed. I agree that we
> ought to be careful to get things right (look what
> happened to that historian at Emory!), but journalists
> are not scientists or experts in a lot of the areas
> that they write about, and if they are held to the
> standards of 100% accuracy on everything, no one will
> read them about anything. I mean, they can't even get
> quotes right.
why not, and why be so forgiving? a stenographer can get it right, why not a highly paid journalist?
> I have never beeb completely accurately
> quoted by the press when I have been interviewed (even
> when they get the general sense right); I am sure
> Doug, who gets interviewed lots more, has had the same
> experience. So it seems to me that your pal was
> looking for an excuse to blow Moore off, unless he'll
> apply the same standard to mainstream and right wing
> journalism with the same results, i.e., not read any
> of it.
no, you are wrong about this, i know him. he does not read rightwing anything, watches no teevee, and reads the local (monopoly) daily. he was not looking to discredit moore and was very disappointed to find him in error.
look, i know how he feels. i don't read moore, because i know he gets his facts wrong and frankly i have too many unread books whose authors i trust to get things right to spend time reading someone who can't be bothered to fact check. doug checks his facts, and he has a lot less money to do it with. i don't see why moore shouldn't.
i know, the argument is made that moore is entertaining and that this will bring "the message" to people who wouldn't read something (more) serious. well, perhaps, but it works the other way when he says something stupid that a reader knows not to be true.
> Furthermore there is a lot of dispute about the
> science of global warming, as I understand it,
> although a lot of it is ideological, there is still
> disagreement. From what I gather, and lord knows I am
> not an expert, responsible scientists agree that it's
> happening and it's a problem, but how much and just
> what, these are not Facts like the earth being round.
i don't know what exactly moore got wrong (i didn't ask), but the impression i got was that it was something fairly basic and not ideological. he's in japan right now, i'll ask when he gets back.
i just don't see why people want to defend sloppy writing. do people think FAIR is wrong to go after Limbaugh for his mis- and mal- statements? what good does it do to be so easily shown not to know what you are talking about?
-- no Onan