Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (18792)	2/13/2002 11:06:15 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

No, to be scrupulously honest, there are a number of people who claim to have evidence that Tim McVeigh was acting in concert with Iraqi agents when he blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City. I have no opinion one way or the other. World Net Daily says there was an article to that effect in U.S. News and World Report - you have to pay U.S. News and World Report to read the article online or visit your library. House Impeachment counsel Schippers is one of the ones who believes in it. I remember Schippers during the impeachment proceedings. He was the one with the incredible beard. I thought he was very impressive - one of the best of the bunch on display. Far superior to almost all of the politicians. worldnetdaily.com

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (18792)	2/14/2002 5:59:02 AM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

There is no doubt, and there is good reason, that many initially thought that it was the work of Arab or Muslim extremists, because many of the bombs and terror attacks directed at the US have come from such. The role of journalist and of the editor (who is the final filter) requires such strong suspicions to be very carefully ascribed: --Many people feel it was the work of... --An administration official said they are "90% sure it was done by...." --The attorney general alleged it was the work of.... Now I am not sure what Emerson stated specifically. If, as was stated in the Salon article, he declared it was the work of Muslims, without using qualifiers, then by definition for one in the field of reporting, he screwed up and criticism is warranted. Does it negate his capacity to be an expert on terrorism? No. But slip-ups over time, if they lean one way or another, can be construed as bias, calling into question his objectivity in analysis. But my original point, in referencing the Salon article, was to bring focus on the impact of government on the lives of two men never convicted of a crime, never granted the simple understanding of any actual evidence that they might then, at least, attempt to construct a defense against, and possibly in violation of their rights to free speech and freedom of association. The story is also a commentary on the impact of the media, of how allegations and pseudo-expertise can be built upon one shaky foundation to produce a version of events far removed from any truth, of the risks of accepting assertions about unnamed sources, and of the media's spotty record in retracting stuff even when confronted with the original error. I certainly was not suggesting I was taking the side of Israel or Palestine, or saying these two nice men got screwed, or any such thing. It is about the danger of unnamed government sources, potentially overzealous prosecutors, when coupled with a media source that is not overly scrupulous in its choice of words. The combined forces have the potential to bastardize justice, and especially so in crisis times such as post 9-11 when the emotionalism of the angry mob can lynch the truth and harm individuals easily enough without the added encouragement of false information. Most journalists ascribe to a severe set of ethical considerations and are careful to apply every principle, so their integrity won't ever come in to question. But modern big-media journalists can sometimes stray by taking too seriously the cult followings they engender. Is Mr. Emerson a journalist first or is he a former journalist whose principal line of work is now the study of violent terrorists? Does he quote extensively from unnamed sources or does he seek out more named sources by far? All are valid questions to ask, instead of blind acceptance from any media source. And Nadine correctly indicated that Salon itself left room for such criticism by omitting a few reference points to back up some of its assertions. Which only furthers my intent in posting the article. Without carefully applied skepticism of the media, we fall prey to judgmental errors that can have a profound negative impact on individuals and the rights of individuals. My posting was a response to another poster mentioning something about Fox News covering the story of the Florida professor. Since I understand the bias of Fox News editors as they appeal to an audience right of center, I went looking for the story as it seemed to me from a myriad of sources I had previously perused and found the Salon article, which summarized a lot of it well. I apply the same rigor to publications widely viewed as left-leaning. And though I have strong suspicions allied with the majority opinion about events, I am regularly concerneed about how willingly our nation lines up to do battle on the basis of trust - in politicians and media accounts - without the presentation of direct evidence. I think that is a dangerous practice; our soldiers and the opposition put thousands of lives on the line and we should not do so without substantial evidence in advance of an armed response.