eyeNET

[Hans Ehrbar <ehrbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>>>> On Tue, 6 Aug 1996 20:41:30 -0400, Gina wrote, addressing Lisa's
"what if" musings about what may lie behind the facts described in
Ken Campbell's eyeNET articles:

Gina> If any of these
Gina> things is "possible" why is that possibility not even addressed,
Gina> let alone made clear in the EYEnet articles?  Why is the
Gina> political purpose of these articles so unclear as to leave even
Gina> someone who DEFENDS them at a loss to explain their exact
Gina> purpose. All you can do in Campbell's defense is to point out "a
Gina> few ... possible interpretations" rather than a clear idea of
Gina> what the author is getting at.

It would be unethical and unprofessional for a journalist to represent
things as facts which he or she cannot prove, or even to suggest to
the reader his pet interpretation of things.  Ken is giving those
facts he is sure about, and he is representing them in a neutral
manner, allowing the readers to draw their own conclusions.  Certain
facts which you consider irrelevant gossip may be quite revealing to
others who have different experiences than yours, Gina.  The Left is
sorely in need of the kind of investigative journalism Ken is engaged
in.  It is true pioneer work.  Others on this list have commended him
and I want to join in: you have my full support, keep up the good
work, Ken!  The information he is giving is 1000 times more valuable
to us than it is to the class enemy.

Hans Ehrbar.


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---