Wow, could that article and headline differ from the actual content any more?
"sharia"? can you say "out of your mind"? a) the "media" showed this whole discussion. b) the host allowed the main woman to speak c) they brought on a "dissenting" view (idiot Harvard professor, a "divinity" prof, not a media person.) who "held the opposite view" The overall discussion I though was decent journalism by the host (who, thankfully, has been obviously working on her speech impediment), critically dissecting the original authors assertions in the article, and allowing the original author to back up her arguments (which I think she did well). I don't see anywhere in this piece where the "fourth estate" silenced her, or suggested she shouldnt have published. The opposite, in fact. without the tv piece, I would never have known of her OR her arguments (which ALSO are part of the fourth estate)" unlike the "writer" who wrote the piece you linked to, all 5 lines of original content, which was ALL rhetoric and polemic, with no substance what so ever. Bad writing, bad reading comprehension. On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:01 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > > Our forth estate at work ladies and gentlemen. > > http://networkedblogs.com/xYRGo > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:351268 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
