Re: Siegel and Lewis

At 7:22 PM 01/03/95, Raph Levien wrote:
>   His piece that ran Saturday was badly mangled by the editorial
>process, especially since it ran on page one. Those articles get to be
>mangled by a whole new set of people who otherwise wouldn't get to
>touch it. I think Lewis has basically good intentions, and does do his
>homework before writing a story.

Yeah, I encourage everyone to actually _finish_ reading that article before
putting Lewis on your permanent hate list.  I almost put it down in
disgust, from the stuff on page 1, but if you turn to where the article is
continued, it becomes quite a bit more balanced and less fear-mongering.
In a rather disjointed sort of way, that makes it easy to beleive the
article was mangled somewhat in editing. Perhaps they rearanged it to put
the "sensational" fear-mongering stuff first.  Which is unfortunate, and
perhaps intentional, because most people probably won't make it to the end
of the article, and if they do, will have been pre-biased by the initial
paragraphs, especially if this is the first they've heard of the subject.
But I don't have too much trouble believing that all blame belongs on the
editors, and not Lewis. :)

On Wed, 4 Jan 1995, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> In a rather disjointed sort of way, that makes it easy to beleive the
> article was mangled somewhat in editing. Perhaps they rearanged it to put
> the "sensational" fear-mongering stuff first.  Which is unfortunate, and

One of the top points was "experts say ....".   Journalists 
do not quote anonymous "experts" on controversial stuff 
unless they have marching orders from above.  It is a 
violation of the standard rules of journalism.  You are 
always supposed to identify the person allegedly speaking.   

"Experts say .." is like "Highly placed sources ...".   You know an 
official lie issued by the the appropriate department of lies is
about going to follow when you see those words.

This article was no accident of sloppy thinking and editing.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we        James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.            jamesd@netcom.com