[PEN-L:5008] Re: Jim and Mike

[Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Max writes:
>I could have mis-focused Louis' target, but Mason's personal circumstances
are nobody's business. ...<

agreed, but that was never in dispute.

>... Incidentally, I never said Johnstone should not be trusted altogether.
 I admit that it was not unreasonable to take that implication from my
brief note.  What I meant, and could have said better, is that her
testimony should not be accepted at face value.  <

no-one's should be, not even mine or yours. BTW, her article wasn't
"testimony" as much as journalism.

>By contrast, in responding to one of Louis' news accounts based explicitly
on Serb sources, I was quite clear that it should be rejected out of hand....<

why? should we assume that _everything_ Serb sources say is a lie? I would
grant that much of it is lies (especially in that they're under military
attack by an external force), but one can always read between the lines and
glean some truth. If they lie all the time, they can't even communicate
among themselves. (It's the same as with Pentagon briefings.) Besides, the
reporter was not from the Serbian armed forces. But I must admit I wouldn't
go first to the Serbian police force sources for info.

>> And just because Jimmy Weinstein couldn't stand Johnstone doesn't mean
he was right. After all, he put up with John Judis' right-wing nonsense for
_years_. I haven't read ITT for years either. Does Judis still get
published there? <<

>John Judis is a friend of mine.  He's smart, he's not right wing, and he
doesn't write nonsense, though I might take exception to what he says from
time to time.  Had lunch w/him today, coincidentally.  I've had the
opportunity to publish in ITT, which I appreciate.  So you can understand
why your argument in this vein cuts no ice with me.<

It wasn't an "argument"; it was a parenthetical comment. But we can't take
some third party's (Weinstein's) dislike for a reporter (Johnstone) to
dismiss that reporter's work, especially if that third party doesn't
automaticaly make the right decision. (BTW, the emphasis in the phrase
"right-wing nonsense" is on "right-wing," with the nonsense being a
redundant word. IMHO, Judis' politics are right-wing, but then again we may
differ on the definition of right-wing.)

>> Actually, Louis' method makes a lot of sense: if one can find an article
in the ultraestablishmentarian NYT that makes the US, NATO, and/or
capitalism look bad, that's worth much more than repeated citing leftish
boilerplate, the preaching to the converted that we all do.<<

>That's true if what you're doing is propaganda or persuasion of a
predetermined point of view, not if you're trying to contribute objectively
to a rational, open-ended discussion.  <

not true. This method works no matter what your purpose. If even the Pope
admits that the Gallileian theory of cosmology is true, then that says
something special. On matters where there is more uncertainty concerning
facts and theory, if people who you think are biased against some
proposition turn out to agree with it, that suggests the existence of rough
consensus, which is useful for developing further understanding.

>Second, you presume that any doubt cast on the NATO enterprise from
something like the NYT must be so because "they" are behind NATO, but there
is a fair amount of controversy over this policy at all levels, so it is
conceivable that the NYT decision to publish a news item is not premised on
whether or not it provides fuel for supporters of the policy.<

This is a presumption based on long experience with the NYT. You should
check out Dean Baker's analyses of the NYT and WP. These newspapers have
very consistent biases. These biases say a lot about what does or does not
get published. They do not have a simple propagandistic approach (like that
of EPI ;-)) but dissent is filtered out.

>... I've responded seriously to PEN-L views.  The exchange on LBO has been
much less civil.<

I've missed the LBO exchange.

>I don't think I've resorted to ad hominem much, if at all.<

I didn't say you did. Rather, it's more of the "dangling innuendo,"
suggesting that unnamed people were pro-Slobo. I remember asking
specifically "to whom you were referring" in one of your broadsides and not
getting any response.

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx &
http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html