Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 07:59:27PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote:
> > John le Carr�
> >
> I agree that freedoms are being eroded and that it needs to be
> stopped. But why not list the problems and discuss address them
> specifically instead of making exagerated statements like this:
>
> > The combination of compliant US media and vested corporate interests
> > is once more ensuring that a debate that should be ringing out in
> > every town square is confined to the loftier columns of the East Coast
> > press.
Le Carr� doesn't *know* what's going on in every town square, now, does
he?
I mean, I'm observing debate all *over* the place. Mostly on the 'net,
because I don't get out to see people to have reasonable adult
conversations often enough, but I'm seeing (and to a limited extent,
participating in) lots of debate.
And how many US newspapers does he read, to see what's all over the
editorial pages in places other than the East Coast, by people in other
parts of the country? For just one, is he reading any Molly Ivins? She
sure as heck isn't part of the East Coast press, unless by virtue of
syndication her columns end up somewhere there. (A writer writing for a
Texas paper, living in Texas, doesn't count as East Coast in *my*
book!) I bet if you looked at all the editorial pages in all the Texas
papers this month, and just looked at columns by people in Texas, you'd
see a fair amount said.
Based on just my own experience, that sentence is inaccurate, and this
reflects poorly on the rest of the piece. If I find him in one
exaggeration, if not outright untruth, then how far can I trust him
about the things I don't know as much about?
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
