But Okrent didn't write about any of that in the piece that he allegedly made the statement I am allegedly arguing about. Nothing about Berger, nothing about Wilson, I went back to double-check. So under conventional logic, my "argument about Okrent's statement" can't have anything to do with that particular rant. And if the NYT is allegedly no good on the source front, where, exactly, does that put the ever popular warbloggers and political commentators and Debka-type sites so favored by W's faithful? Is the Chinese Muslim army on the march into Afghanistan again?
This is a particularly excellent example of how you argue when you're cornered--ignore the obvious, change the subject, become purposefully obtuse, etc.
The NYT/Okrent issue has always been about the NYT's liberal bias. Or haven't you been reading what we've been arguing about? That Okrent failed to discuss Pants Berger or Lyin' Joe is not relevant to the manner in which the NYT treated their stories, and that is central to the Okrent piece.
Winnie, you are more than welcome to claim that the WSJ and the rest of the red-eyed monsters under your bed are biased. Be my guest, make the point, and back it up with evidence. I realize it's not your preferred mode of discourse, but at least looking for it will keep you busy. |
