On Nov 16, 2007 12:58 PM, John Thornton <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> > Does this high-horse moralizing really add anything to
> > a discussion of Ehrenreich's work? You think reporters
> > -- damn near all of them -- don't lie to get stories?
> > Including to their subjects? You think we'd have
> > stories if reporters were as ethical as you are? Does
> > it undermine the value and accuracy of the information
> > and analysis if it's not obtained with total honesty
> > and full disclosure? OK, she's not Studs Terkel. (Who
> > doesn't broadcast his U of C law degree to his
> > subjects.) Nobody else is, in fact, Studs Terkel. Why
> > is Studs Terkel's approach the only approved one to
> > get information? What do you do if you don't have his
> > touch?
> >
>
> Does anyones opinion add anything to any discussion?
> Why are your panties in such a wad here?
> Am I required to approve of Ehrenreich's deception? No room for questions?
> I never made any claims about how ethical I was only that many people
> find the deception Ehrenreich practiced to be questionable. I can see
> their point and agree with it to some degree.
> No high-horse moralizing on my part when I point this out unless any
> question of the appropriateness of deception is high-horse moralizing to
> you.
> If you think the deception was great I'm very happy for you.
> I don't condemn her for it but I also don't praise her for it either.
>
> Do not compare the fact that Terkel may not disclose his degree to every
> person he questions (it isn't relevant to every discussion) to
> Ehrenreich's deliberate dishonesty in how she presented herself to
> others. Why would you wish to smear Terkel with such an odious
> comparison? Bad form counselor.
> If you wish to defend Ehrenreich can you do it without smearing Terkel
> at the same time? If not you have a very weak defense of her and should
> let others, like bitch perhaps, carry this defense forward.
> I never said Terkel's approach was the only one I approved of so please
> don't put words in my mouth. I will say exactly what I mean and clarify
> my position to anyone who asks.
>
>
> > If Ehrenreich were a better person by your standards,
> > but a worse reporter, would we be richer or poorer in
> > information and understanding? Orwell was a snitch, a
> > liar in the same way that Ehrenrich was (Ehrenreich is
> > not a snitch, but wasn't Gloria Steinhem? And now, it
> > appears, Ryzcard Kapuzinski?), and a jerk in a way
> > that she's not. Michael Moore, whom I used to work
> > with/for in a minor way decades ago when he was just a
> > n alternative newspaper publisher in Michigan, is an
> > infamously difficult person and has come under
> > partially well-deserved attack for ethical, er,
> > deficiencies. In his case, some of them may weaken the
> > value of his journalism. If they don't, why does it
> > matter? Do you only want read things by good people?
> > Who appointed you the ethical arbiter of journalism?
> > (I'm not endorsing your low opinion of Ehrenreich as a
> > person.)
> >
>
> I have no lower opinion of Ehrenreich than any other social scientist.
> Who said I did? I didn't claim any position as moral or ethical arbiter
> of anything except myself. I stated I was ambivalent about Ehrenreich
> and could understand how some have come to dislike her. I like her for
> the same reasons others do and dislike her for the reasons posted
> leaving me in a rather ambivalent position concerning her. I don't have
> to justify that position any more than I already have. There's nothing
> particularly odd about my position either.
> You are free to believe that the level of honesty it takes to make me
> feel positively, rather than ambivalently, about someone is too high but
> I don't foresee changing my opinion based on the screed you just posted.
> Why are you positioning yourself as the moral arbiter? Why is my
> questioning the appropriateness of her deception high-horse moralizing?
>
>
> > And what, by the way, is this "personal gain" stuff?
> > Apart from the fact that only a leftist of the sort
> > that puts the left into disrepute expects people to
> > work for free, and apart from the fact that her
> > motivation, whatever it was, is irrelevant to the
> > value of her work, where did you obtain this
> > information about her reasons for acting in the way
> > that she did? Did she say, "I only write left wing
> > screeds for personal gain" in some writing of hers
> > that I missed? Granted, that would be a pretty stupid
> > way to make money, but maybe she's stupid as well as
> > dishonest an inauthentic, although you wouldn't know
> > about her stupidity from her writing. Be that as it
> > may, you have no clue about her motives, which are
> > entirely by the way in any event.
>
>
> Since I believe part of the reason she chose to interject herself into
> the narrative of N&D was self-aggrandizement I am free to find that
> behaviour questionable as have others. It is merely my opinion and is
> stated as such. If you have an opinion that varies with that good for
> you but you no more know my criticism in invalid than I know it is valid
> since she in all likelihood never confided in either of us any of her
> motives for her actions.
>
>
> John Thornton
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>