[lbo-talk] Critiquing the critique

[Joseph Wanzala]

what's wrong with a good lead in sentence letting the reader know where the 
article is going rather than meandering about? and it's funny to see you 
quote Cockburn to make your point. I am certainly not firing to any 
preconceptions on the LBO list if anything I am trying to challenge 
preconceptions.

Do I keep reading to reassure myself? ... I don't understand your question.


>From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Critiquing the critique
>Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 19:27:44 -0400
>
>Joseph Wanzala wrote:
>
>>July 6, 2004
>>Critiquing the critique
>>
>>Pandering to the lies the Left tells itself about the Democrats
>>
>>By Stephen Gowans
>>
>>http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans/critique.html
>>
>>Robert Jensen, a professor of journalism at the University of Texas, has 
>>written a penetrating and mostly cogent critique of Michael Moore's 
>>Fahrenheit 9/11, in which he argues the filmaker's documentary panders to 
>>the lies Americans tell themselves about the US military protecting 
>>Americans' freedom, rather than projecting US power abroad.
>
>More tedious crap. Almost without fail, you can tell exactly where pieces 
>like this are going after the first sentence. As Cockburn once said of C.L. 
>Sulzberger, his writing consists of dense volleys of cliche fired into the 
>preconceptions of his readers. Do you keep reading to reassure yourself?
>
>Doug
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk