Michael Atherton wrote: > There is absolutely no attempt to address the facts or issues > reported in the article. Ms. Becker only attempts to counter > by citing her own "ultra-liberal left-wing biased pseudo-journalistic > sources."
Chris Johnson wrote: >That may well be, Carol, but smearing the article without reading and >understanding it simply based on this is hogwash. And I'm a >bleeding-heart liberal. Mr. Atherton and Mr. Johnson are correct. I made no attempts to make any statement about whether what was written in the "Weekly Standard" was correct or not. That was never my point in this post. I have not, in fact, read the article. My point, which was encapsulated in the last statement of my post, is simple. "Caveat emptor." For people who do read this article, they should understand that this "newspaper" is not really a newspaper in any sense of the kind of journalistic ethics and reporting standards that people expect from a typical newspaper. My point, as I said, was to inform people who read this that it is by a source that has typically has had a very distinct bias. That isn't to say that an individual article can or cannot provide a fair and balanced perspective on an issue. Just that on average, historically this has not been the case. Carol Becker Longfellow REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
