Denys Beauchemin wrote:

> Point taken, but you will note that the "opinions" noted here are
> lukewarm and arguably belong in the story.  The first one you mention
> would not be enhanced by the addition of "or failures," since most of
> the press and the political environment in general is focusing on the
> "failures" exclusively.

IMHO the "impartial" press shouldn't be in the business of redressing
imbalances elsewhere. As you said - just report the facts.

> To back this up, listen to any of the nine
> dwarves running for the Democratic nomination.  Any success in Iraq (or
> anywhere else,) resonates deeply and negatively in Democratic circles.
> The political overtones are indeed obvious.
>
> The second one is again a follow-on to the first and is more of an
> observation than an opinion.

How do you define the difference?

> One would have to be totally blind not to
> notice that many people hope that Iraq goes badly, nine of them are
> running for the Democratic nomination.  Any good news for America is
> indeed bad news for the Democratic Party.

So by this time I'm thinking the writing of the story has a political
agenda, beyond just reporting the facts.

> The third one you mention is subtler and denotes a deep understanding of
> the current gun control debate in America.  It also tries to draw a
> parallel between the situations here at home and in Iraq.  One must not
> forget most reporters in Iraq are "utopians" that firmly believe that
> all guns are evil, used only for evil purposes.  There are only a few
> who believe that guns are tools and that people can be evil.  (Sidebar -
> The misnamed AWB (Assault Weapons Ban) is sunsetting in 10 months.  It
> demonstrably had absolutely no effect on crime, however it did
> contribute to the fact the Democrats lost the house and Senate in 1994.
> There is virtually no movement to renew the ban in October of 2004.  The
> Democrats in Congress are scared to touch any gun control legislation,
> less they further erode as a viable party.)

And this is where it fell apart for me. The writer has a *clear*
agenda here - and his exposing it serves to diminish the impact of
the actual facts in the story.

BTW *your* agenda is clear as well. We're talking about the nature
of impartial journalism here, not about the validity of the AWB.

> A couple more things.  The article in question was written by John Lott,
> a well-known and published supporter of the second amendment.  His story
> was less about reporting a situation in Iraq and more about comparing
> different reports and reporting on what he had discovered on his own.
> It was an opinion piece, but even under that rubric, it still had few
> opinions.  However, this opinion piece was more factual and less
> opinionated than what passes for pure news in the elite media.

I'd like to see an example, analyzed in much the same way as we did
this one.

> Finally, read this one.  Remember, the byline is 5 December, before they
> caught Saddam.
> http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=IRAQ-REALITY-12-0
> 5-03

Good article IMHO. I also enjoyed the article on Rumsfeld in the latest
Time magazine. What did you think of that?

- Greg
--
Greg Cagle
gregc at gregcagle dot com

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *