Chip: Since I actually have articles published in newspapers, I know the differences among an unsigned editorial, an op-ed, and a column. The column in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is written anonymously by a so-called Washington insider. It appears regularly. It is neither an unsigned editorial nor an op-ed. The description of the column from the web page is as follows....
CJ: Since I have articles published in magazines and newspapers, too, I can tell you the distinction is not so clear-cut. Since I'm not 'registered' or 'certified' to be a journalist, anything I write is published as 'analysis' or 'commentary'. That, in fact, is how the Epstein article was published, not as straight WSJ news (so I correct myself, I had thought he was a WSJ reporter, my error). As for the piece at the Pittsburgh paper, it was labelled as such-- 'editorial'-- when searching for it at the site. I realize now that the term is ambiguous.
Chip:
I thought the Epstein article was interesting. It would have been much more appropriate to cite the original article rather than an elaboration of it in an anonymous column in a right-wing newspaper known for its conspiracism.
CJ:
Why didn't you cite the darn thing, if you knew it existed. I just found it myself. Just because I didn't have it one day, doesn't mean I wasn't going to get it.
Chip:
The Epstein artlce was published in December, and said the FBI had been premature in dismissing the possibility that foreign actors are involved in the sending of the real anthrax letters. I agree. In fact I posted the same sentiments on the PRA web page before the Epstein article appeared, although he certainly has much more detail.
CJ:
And you invented the internet, too, right? Look, we've had serious discussion of possible theories on this list, and I don't remember your input. We have looked at the possibilities of an individual or small group connected with the labs with the Ames strain, but we've also said that this stuff got exported to other countries too.
So if you want to criticize me now about not posting the original Epstein article, it all seems a bit after the fact.
Chip:
I will continue to oppose conspiracism becasue it undercuts serious left-wing analysis, and feeds the recruitment of right-wing populist groups.
CJ: But don't slimily imply anyone who doesn't get to the pure sources of your homepage or NPR are under the baleful influence, o.k.?
I'll post the Epstein article and let Doug with his archive worry about if he is in violation of copyright. I'm just sending it out to a few friends in my address book as far as I'm concerned.
Epstein to follow.
Charles Jannuzi