From: Vincent Campbell (VCampbell@dmu.ac.uk)
Date: Tue 30 Sep 2003 - 09:49:08 GMT
<My insincerest apologies; I'm inclined to suspect that you would
> of those sources to be irretrieveably biased, unlike such paragons of
> objectivity as Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Robert Fisk, Ted Rall, and
> the late Edward Said...>
You're not off the mark there, but I wouldn't suggest that list of people were paragons of objectivity necessarily, but at least these people have walked the streets of Iraq and Palestine, and have confronted people on all sides of the conflicts as to their motives legitimacy etc. Of those on your original list I'm familiar with, that cannot be said.
> Ideally, arguments should be judged on their evidence not on their source,
> but when polemical individuals offer categorically unfounded opinions on
> other subjects and demonstrate ethically questionable behaviour, as Roger
> Scruton has definitely done in the instances I referred to (i.e. deriding
> an entire discipline through making the most basic and fatal
> misunderstanding about what we do, therefore revealing little more than
> ignorant prejudice, and also excepting money to illicitly promote the
> cancer-stick industry), then the validity of their views on any matter,
> especially one as grave as the Iraq situation, are fatally undermined.
Concentrating your reading on the conservative (by international standards) US news media, and the right-wing commentators within the US news media does little to add to your arguments. There's a whole Web of stuff out there, in english, from all over the world that might enlighten you if only you'd consider it.
BTW, how's the PhD going?
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue 30 Sep 2003 - 10:06:57 GMT