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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (18608)	7/31/2002 12:52:28 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

It's an opinion piece. Just like the opinion pieces on the WSJ editorial page over the years which savagely attacked the Clintons, it asserts things which, if true, indicate atrocious behavior. The question is: are these things true? What is the other side of the story? (there always is one). The fact that the author and the publisher are sympathetic to the cause of defendant's rights really doesn't tell you whether the accusations in the article are true or false. It tells you that the author is potentially biased, but so what? The WSJ editorial page was potentially biased (some would say actually biased) against the Clintons. But in the end, what mattered about those opinion pieces was whether the statements contained in them were true or false (or somewhere in between). I thought there were some great pieces written by the Journal in those years which indicated some conduct by the Clintons that was reprehensible. Yet many Clinton sympathizers (and his spouse) considered only the source and not the content, and wrote all of the assertions off as a "vast right wing conspiracy". Conservatives should not make the same mistake with things such as the Tulia tale. Like you, I am skeptical of the NYT's slant on this story. But I am not willing to ignore the story just because it is in the Times. I am interested in what evidence there was that these folks rounded up in Texas were in fact engaged in criminal conduct. How many of those paraded in front of the TV cameras that night in a humiliating fashion were in fact later found guilty of violations of criminal law? The fact that a liberal author in a liberal publication brought this to our attention doesn't answer those questions, and therefore identifying the political leanings of the author doesn't accomplish much for me.