tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post6806879890464261094..comments2023-11-02T05:46:17.571-07:00Comments on QuantumDice: When the truth is just a 'little fact'Howardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08379598516764590842noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-83576694393646487532008-09-11T09:07:00.000-07:002008-09-11T09:07:00.000-07:00Jay Rosen tweeted a mention of Larry Lessig's ...Jay Rosen tweeted a mention of Larry Lessig's comments over at <a href="http://www.politico.com/arena/" rel="nofollow">Politico</a>:<br><br><em><br>Somehow we need to elevate the idea that truth is a complete defense to the charge of bias.<br><br>The press is trapped by the view that it can't say what's true if that would be seen to have an effect on an election. Think about the New York Times' decision to withhold what it knew about the Bush Administration until after the 2004 election, for fear that if it had revealed that before the election, it would have been called "biased." Somehow we need to elevate the idea that truth is a complete defense to the charge of bias. Armed with that complete defense, I suspect more would be willing to call the McCain campaign on this shameful misuse of what Obama said. Talk about a question of judgment: If a student of mine had read what Obama said in context, and then suggested he was really talking about Palin, I would seriously worry about whether we should arm that student with a law degree. But a law degree is a much less dangerous power than the Presidency.<br><br>And come on, Steve [Calabresi]. A "post-partisan politics" can't possibly mean you're not allowed to criticize the policies of your opponent. It should instead mean you don't make truth a function of which party it happens to benefit. That ideal should begin with us. The "interpretation" of Obama's statement offered by the McCain campaign is absurd. If we can't say that, then how can we expect anyone to be able to speak it?<br></em>Nathan L. Wallshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13603555231058485125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-56495362014473405242008-09-11T14:24:00.000-07:002008-09-11T14:24:00.000-07:00"A couple of years ago, a University of Maryl..."A couple of years ago, a University of Maryland survey found something like 42% of adults in America still believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction long after acknowledgment by the president that we couldn't find any"<br><br>GO TERPS!TDwww.islandpacket.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-45943141012555413772008-09-11T16:33:00.000-07:002008-09-11T16:33:00.000-07:009:07: If you're talking about the interpretati...9:07: If you're talking about the interpretation offered by the McCain campaign of Obama's pig comment: Based on the video, the crowd pretty clearly understood him to be taking a shot at Palin. Whether he meant it that way or not, he left it open to interpretation.<br><br>At least, the interpretation is pretty far from absurd, and if journalists said it *was* absurd, that would be bias.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-11011559732646076002008-09-11T19:53:00.000-07:002008-09-11T19:53:00.000-07:004:33: Journalists should not fear using facts to d...4:33: Journalists should not fear using facts to discount soothsayers.<br><br>The current context is Palin, yes, but not the "Lipstick on a Pig" comment that both McCain _and_ Obama have made. Instead, it's Palin's "Thanks, but no thanks!" to the "Bridge to Nowhere" stump statement.<br><br>Lessig's point isn't limited to the current kerfluffle, but a broader one about the timidness of journalists to be called "biased" by those with a vested interest in advancing their own narrative with as little skeptical examination as possible.Nathan L. Wallshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13603555231058485125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-56936936823851459702008-09-11T23:06:00.000-07:002008-09-11T23:06:00.000-07:00Oooh, and here's another one: An ADN story fro...Oooh, and here's another one: An ADN story from Feb. 8, 2008, says Palin "removed the funding" for the bridge: http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/517382.html.<br><br>I guess Palin's narrative is pretty well in line with the narrative reported in the Alaska Daily News.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-41556233620209544722008-09-12T09:23:00.000-07:002008-09-12T09:23:00.000-07:00Whoops, comment before 11:06 did not make it throu...Whoops, comment before 11:06 did not make it through moderation. It said:<br><br>Alaska Daily News, March 12, 2008:<br>(http://www.adn.com/front/story/343508.html)<br><br>"Palin ruffled feathers when she announced - without giving the delegation advance notice - that the state was killing the Ketchikan bridge to Gravina Island, site of the airport and a few dozen residents."<br><br>Who's wrong: the Democrats, or the ADN?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-31326129852063706662008-09-12T09:24:00.001-07:002008-09-12T09:24:00.001-07:00Whoops, comment before 11:06 did not make it throu...Whoops, comment before 11:06 did not make it through moderation. It said:<br><br>Alaska Daily News, March 12, 2008:<br>(http://www.adn.com/front/story/343508.html)<br><br>"Palin ruffled feathers when she announced - without giving the delegation advance notice - that the state was killing the Ketchikan bridge to Gravina Island, site of the airport and a few dozen residents."<br><br>Who's wrong: the Democrats, or the ADN?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-70978413886978937272008-09-12T12:56:00.000-07:002008-09-12T12:56:00.000-07:009:23: False dichotomy. Saying the state won't ...9:23: False dichotomy. Saying the state won't foot the bill when it's likely Congress (under scrutiny) won't close the funding gap is not the same as standing on principle (and as a lay observer, that seems to be her message) and turning down a project from the get go.<br><br>It is entirely possible that her decision _was_ a surprise to the state's congressional delegation _and_ that she made a politically expedient decision in doing so.Nathan L. Wallshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13603555231058485125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-34432412758373691072008-09-12T22:36:00.000-07:002008-09-12T22:36:00.000-07:00Actually, if you'll pardon the linguistic muti...Actually, if you'll pardon the linguistic mutilation, it's a true dichotomy. You're moving the goalposts.<br><br>The stump quote is: "I told Congress thanks, but no thanks, on the bridge to nowhere."<br><br>Either she killed the bridge to nowhere, or she didn't.<br><br>The Democrats (and the piece linked to in Howard's post) say she didn't.<br><br>The ADN says she did.<br><br>Whether she supported it at first is not the question. Nor is "political expediency."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com