VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4 ]
Subject: Re: P.S.


Author:
Kylopod
 		[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 19:52:48 04/06/08 Sun
Author Host/IP: pool-71-179-113-12.bltmmd.east.verizon.net/71.179.113.12
In reply to: Jimmy 's message, "P.S." on 13:18:10 04/06/08 Sun
 >the way I read it is it was
>attributed to the 'phlanx of reporters' and 'men of
>the cloth' and has nothing to do with Obama's speech
>which you seem to be suggesting Hitchens is using to
>trap him by ramming his own words down his throat.

So the paragraph begins and ends talking about Obama, it is surrounded on both sides by comments on Obama, and even within the paragraph he identifies two words that actually appear in Obama's speech (though not used at all in the manner he implies), and you want me to believe that he was merely talking about the "phalanx of reporters" and "men of the cloth" and not Obama himself?

The first problem is that if you apply his criticism to reporters, it makes no sense. Why would there being anything unusual about reporters describing someone as "controversial"? You would never expect to find words like "stupid" or "wicked" or "false" in a news article (unless it was from a quote, of course). That's called journalistic objectivity. And I'm not trying to get into an argument over whether reporters are truly objective. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. The point is that it's an accepted journalistic convention to use cautious language like that, no matter who they're talking about. To suggest that it shows they're going soft on Wright in particular is absurd. And Hitchens, who has worked as a reporter himself, would certainly know that.

That leaves "men of the cloth." If that's who Hitchens was accusing of going soft on Wright, I'd be curious to see examples of what he has in mind. But even then, it wouldn't save the paragraph. There's no way you can possibly read the paragraph as restricting the criticism (of using equivocal language) to "men of the cloth" while sparing the "phalanx of reporters" and Obama.
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
Subject Author Date
Re: P.S.Jimmy20:39:53 04/09/08 Wed

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-14
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.