Friends of Darwin


He loves and she loves

Just Causes

  • Support_denmark

  • Marykay_1

Password required

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

« Festive cats put on the dog | Main | "Then a gradual return to forgetfulness" »

December 27, 2004


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Whoever this Hewitt fellow is, he should be whipped. Ask ME them questions, pal, and I'll respond to each one as follows: It's none of your G.D. Business. Positions were open in Russia -- c. 1920 -- and even here at HOME -- c. 1952 -- for people like him, but future employment looks skinny -- thank ___! (Ya never know who's watchin').

Ah, if this fellow believes his questions to be "simple" one must conclude that the chap is -- alas -- a simpleton.

I just watched a movie"The Mortal Storm" about Nazi Germany in the early thiries. Hitler banned scientific evidence that showed tha the blood of all races is the same. Today's liberals in the US ban judges who will interpret the constitution as written instead of changing it to suit their tastes. It is human nature to want our beliefs to be accepted. Freedom of ideas for me not you, is the fascist way. I am glad you are on watch to point it out where ever it appears.

Sissy, I think you make an excellent point, but I come at it a little differently. Use the rules of evidence as your guide. Hewitt's questions are offensive on direct examination -- nobody simply living their lives, even MSM journalists, are under any moral obligation to answer invasive questions such as these, even if the questioner is willing to answer them on his or her own behalf. However, I think most of us righty bloggers agree that the deceptive aspect of the MSM is its persistent institutional claim that it is somehow objective, which claim flies in the face of obvious fact and everything we know about bias in observation (BTW, see Crichton's new book on that subject). When an icon of the MSM -- Dan "The Camera Never Blinks" Rather, for example -- claims objectivity as his own, I think it is very reasonable to introduce Hewitt's questions to impeach that primary claim. That is, his questions are unfair and invasive on direct examination, but entirely appropriate on cross examination to rebut a claim that the MSM is objective or "fair and balanced" (just to pick on both sides). If you don't want to face the questions, don't claim to be an agenda-less "fair witness" to the world around you.

Jack has it exactly right. It's the claim of neutrality and objectivity that makes it entirely reasonable to ask "ok, then, where were you on the night of..."

Everyone who reads my blog for very long figures out quickly that I'm a conservative-ish libertarian Catholic - and I make no pretense of being anything else. The MSM cloaks itself behind a facade of neutrality - which it then uses as cover to advance its own agenda.

There's not a darn thing wrong with advancing an agenda - but when you're pretending to be something that you obviously aren't, then people are justified in asking snoopy questions.

Myself, I'd like every news commentator, including the ones on Fox, to reveal who they voted for and who they gave money to. If they're neutral, then we'll see a distribution of votes, and not a monolithic bloc for one candidate or party. Right?

Ah, but Jack has it wrong. If Hewitt had said "and if they are willing to answer the ten questions, I'll be able to trust them," that'd be one thing. But he's going to base his trust on the answers to the questions, and he might just as well be saying "liberal reporters can't be trusted." Which is a very different thing than saying "there's a liberal bias to the news."

The comments to this entry are closed.

The Cold Turkey Cookbook

Look to the animals

  • looktotheanimals


Blog powered by Typepad