paul@phs.UUCP (Paul C. Dolber) (10/08/84)
I am bothered by the reception of a few of my recent submissions to net.politics. Herewith, an explanation. (1) I submitted a quote from National Review to the effect that the "ketchup = lunch" story was a canard. Jordan Pollack (uicsl!pollack) responded that such a quote (among others) was inappropriate since: (a) it was from a "years-old" issue (b) of National Review (c) which represented itself as authoritative "truth" while (d) being a third party's tendentious editorializing. Now, (a) What does the age of the article have to do with anything? (b) Given that the refutation was in the form of a quote of a Washington Post writer, from whose pages the "ketchup = lunch" story originated, what's wrong with the story being told from National Review? After all, I haven't got old copies of the Washington Post around to refer to. (c) The quote represented itself as a quote, not as authoritative truth, though I believe the item to be true. Do you have evidence to the contrary? And, (d) the pertinent part of the NR piece was a quote and not an editorial. (2) I submitted a quote from National Review in which Tomas Borge was quoted (by West German journalists) as saying that he was very sure the opposition wouldn't win. Well, that's hard to complain about. This was followed by an AP piece about interruption of opposition meetings by "divine mobs." dec-milrat!brener responded to the effect that you can't always believe anyone about numbers of demonstrators, including the AP; I agree, though what I found significant about the AP piece was not the number of individuals involved, but the AP assertion that Daniel Ortega "publicly praised [the mobs]... as an expression of people defending the Sandinista revolution." Jordan Pollack responded roughly to the effect that there are varying degrees of undemocratic behavior. This is of course true, but does not suggest that there's any fundamental inaccuracy in the NR quote nor in the AP story. (3) I submitted a selection of quotes from two editorials, one by George Will and one by James Kilpatrick, on the Genocide Treaty. This was followed by a NR piece on a recent altercation at the World Court. Jeff Myers responded, roughly, that Will could be trusted, but that Kilpatrick and NR probably could not be. (Will opposes signing the treaty; Kilpatrick favors signing, soon, with minor amendations.) Furthermore, none of the quotes presented from the editorials required one to believe anything of the pundits except that they had read the treaty, knew of Helms's and Erwin's objections to same, and were accurately reporting the terms of the treaty and the objections raised. To date, I have seen no evidence presented that either Will or Kilpatrick was lying; does anyone have such evidence? Jeff Myers went on to assert (roughly, as this is from memory) that he had heard a rumor, somewhere, that Kilpatrick and another columnist of his ilk circularly quoted one another. What this (even if true) has to do with his reporting on the Genocide Treaty escapes me. Finally, Jeff went on to ask for substantiation or refutation of the NR World Court story; that's OK by me. Jeff, have you heard anything on this? There are net.politics subscribers from the Netherlands and Sweden; I'd be interested to know if the story was refuted or substantiated by them (or anyone else). Jordan Pollack made no direct reference to this submission though it was he who (rhetorically?) raised the question of why the treaty had not been ratified. (4) Finally, I submitted two quotes from National Review on the nature of the British presence in Grenada. This was a reaction on my part to a net.politics article in which another article was quoted to the effect that Grenada was British property. The quotes I supplied described the nature of the British presence on the island and how that presence came to be as it was. One article did refer to the "Cuban takeover;" however, that had nothing to do with the rest of the quote, serving only to indicate the period being discussed. Again, Jordan Pollack objected, and again apparently because the quotes were (a) from years-old (b) National Review which (c) were presented as authoritative truth while (d) being tendentious editorializing, and apparently also (e) discussing the "Cuban takeover" of Grenada. Regarding points (a) - (d), see response to (1) above. With regard to point (e), again, the submission had nothing to do with Cuban takeovers; if you like, substitute whatever year you think the original author might have meant by that term. Jordan Pollack and apparently Jeff Myers object to my quoting of National Review, or at least my taking National Review seriously. Jordan further claims that quotations from National Review are "gagging the net." That I am aware, I am the only person who has quoted NR lately, and a grand total of four times, as described above (no, five times: I quoted parts of a John Simon review of "Tightrope" in net.movies). Jordan finally reminds us of Newton's third law, that "to every action there is always opposed an equal reaction;" Jordan, if my action in presenting four quotes from National Review seems to you to be gagging the net, I suggest your reaction is anomalous, if not pathological. With the possible exception noted in (4)(e) above, which actually had nothing to do with the submission, the quotations dealt with matters of fact. If net.politics readers believe the facts to be fiction, or editorial opinion, then by all means expose the situation -- quoting In These Times or Mother Jones, if you wish. (Indeed, for all I know, I've been reading quotes from these sources in net.politics for the past 4 years, since submitters very rarely credit their sources. E.g. the recent submission to the effect that Nicaraguan bananas are OK with Reagan since Michael Deaver owns all the bananas, and Jeff's mention of a rumor that Kilpatrick and someone else practice their business improperly.) If your only objection is that NR was quoted, too bad. Or wait -- maybe I'll not quote National Review, Conservative Digest, or American Spectator if you all agree not to quote the New York Times, the Washington Post, or anything from Grove Press? Naah, quote whom you will, but please do quote or at least indicate the source of material not emanating purely from your own gray matter. Regards, Paul Dolber @ DUMC (...duke!phs!paul). PS: I'd appreciate net mail from readers who find it awful or otherwise that I have the audacity to quote National Review, James Kilpatrick, etc. I see no reason to involve net.politics further with this matter, but am interested in whether silence indicates agreement or indifference.
brener@milrat.DEC (10/12/84)
>dec-milrat!brener responded to the effect that you can't always believe >anyone about numbers of demonsrators, including the AP While that may be true, it certainly wasn't the focus of my arguement. Afterwards i explained how a woman i know who had been living there for a while attended a Good Friday Parade in Managua, and when it hit the press here it was billed as an Anti-Sandinista rally. She was shocked as she knew that this was a manipulative fabrication by the press designed to rally support for Anti-Sandinista sentiment in the U.S.. To call this irresponsible would be an understatement. My point was that for intended purpose the press is a powerful means of propaganda that can alter the facts, and obviously has. steve b