|
Neighbors, I had a good talk with a library friend immediately after the shock of reading it. We really do have a crisis with critical thinking and reading skills in this country. My friend read the piece and immediately recognized the serious problem, as I hope the listserv readers were able to do!
UC Review: 'For the record, those rumors are both untrue and wildly exaggerated. After first hearing them, this reporter made a quick call to the city’s Special Events Office for clarification. After asking the representative if a park user would need a permit to either eat a snack or play chess, the representative laughed before issuing a resounding, "No!" '
"For the record..." What record? This is where the critical reading skills of the reader are very important. Journalists are responsible for using credible sources. She has not cited any documentation of a rumor, like a listserv discussion or identified an actual witness, like Vice President Brian Brietbart, for example. What careful readers immediately recognize is that the UC Review is actually creating a RUMOR!
Claiming that the UC reporter did not understand that she was the victim of a strawman source is not a legitimate defense of the violation of the most basic fundamentals of journalism. Careful readers understand that this type of propaganda must be immediately dismissed for violating fundamental principles of journalism, source credibility. Later in the story, Mr. Chance is cited as a "credible" source of information, just like the source of the rumor should have been supported! The reporter understood the importance of proper support at that point! (Example: An anonymous source and the Easter Bunny verify that the Friends of Clark Park are the same as the community.) When you go on to finish the UC Review story, you can see that a desire to provide an FOCP spin on the radical transformation of our parks was the true purpose of the silly rumor set-up. Then, careful readers understand that the piece was not just simple crap posing as journalism, but an attempt to misdirect you from the important questions, which citizens of Philadelphia are increasingly asking about the new permit rules. Careful readers recognize that another primary purpose of the UC Review piece is to manipulate folks to believe that those investigating the serious new permit issues, with serious questions and concerns, are liars and spreaders of rumors! When other details of the new permit requirements emerge, you are supposed to dismiss the credible and identified source as a rumor mill!
The editor of the paper is also responsible for this sort of failure. This was not an op-ed piece by a lone reader, but supposedly a report by a responsible journalist, whose editor requires journalistic standards. This type of propaganda should never have been allowed to be printed as a report or investigation! Period! These are not difficult concepts. I strongly urge that anyone taken in by this dismissal of important issues by this anonymous strawman, review the basic and fundamental concepts of journalism 101. It's important for citizens in a democracy to acquire critical thinking and reading skills. Here again, is the text of the propaganda for your analysis.
Stop privatization! Save our parks! Glenn
|
