[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APD] Fish-Related Story
Russell Vance wrote:
> and I'm sure that the washington post, given its reputation of being
> unbiased and fair (snicker snicker), has included all relevant facts to
> base an opinion on this matter.
We should look to Fox News for unbiased coverage ;)
> Every sentence in that article was slanted and aimed to make the congressman
> look like a jerk.
I think he's done a good job of that himself without any assistance from
> "In a surgical strike" sure, that is an unbiased way to start an article.
What's wrong with that? Would you oppose the phrase if it had said, "In
a surgical strike against cancer, Larry Craig of Idaho inserted $2
billion in additional cancer research money into an appropriations
bill"? It only sounds biased when it is applied to something negative.
You have to ask yourself why it sounds negative in the first place. I
would say because it reeks of retribution.
> Is the congressman a jerk?? He might be. He might be completely in the
> wrong. I value our environment and natural resources as much as anyone, but
> I am also a scientist and am often critical of whether or not research is
> tainted (especially when it relies heavily on statistics). The article was
> clearly written with a strong bias and omitted key information required to
> base a valid opinion on the subject.
I would argue that this isn't the case. It's pretty difficult to argue
that X salmon in 1980 and X-Y salmon in 2005 is "tainted" research. Mr.
Craig has challenged the research, but the only evidence he has offered
is a mischaracterization (read: lie) about other investigations of the
research's validity. It is the challenger's job (Mr. Craig) to offer up
some evidence of his assertions.
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com