A Wake Up Call From Luke AFB

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:54:55 +0000, Tina wrote:

Your note suggests both gross ignorance on the part of the letter writer,
and of the newspaper for publishing such a letter.

I don't know about the second. Consider the story with which this thread
started. The author - and everyone that read the entire dialog in the
newspaper - learned a valuable lesson. A bit of ignorance and
small-mindedness was defeated.

Maybe. Of all the letters-to-the editor that a newspaper receives, why
publish the original?
What if no one had responded to the letter?

(An understanding of the Arizona Repugnat and their editors might provide an
insight)

Publishing ignorant letters is an opportunity. Better that then have
those people quietly voting out of their ignorance, no?

Of course, it would be even better if newspapers actually sought answers,
but that doesn't seem to be a part of journalism (with a few exceptions)
anymore. Rather, they tend to just accept what they're told and even
sometimes publish these "facts" w/o any qualification (ie. "fact" rather
than "fact according to ...").

And many times the accept what they're told because it fits their agenda.
(See previous remarks about the AZ RePukeLic).

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:53:28 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

And many times the accept what they're told because it fits their agenda.

Perhaps, but I'll assume laziness and stupidity by default before malice.
My opinion of journalists is that low, I suppose laugh.

The Public editor had an editorial in last Sunday's times which complained
about this sort of laziness in that paper. The result of at least the
cited examples was that this supposedly left-leaning paper was supporting
the current administration's agenda. Not impossible, I suppose, but it's
more likely the result of stupid and/or lazy journalists than a real bias
in favor of the current administration.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:53:28 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

And many times the accept what they're told because it fits their agenda.

Perhaps, but I'll assume laziness and stupidity by default before malice.
My opinion of journalists is that low, I suppose laugh.

Never count out malice. :~)

Quite frankly, I've learned to give that priority until something
substantial says otherwise.


The Public editor had an editorial in last Sunday's times which complained
about this sort of laziness in that paper. The result of at least the
cited examples was that this supposedly left-leaning paper was supporting
the current administration's agenda. Not impossible, I suppose, but it's
more likely the result of stupid and/or lazy journalists than a real bias
in favor of the current administration.


Then there's always that category called "Both".