Well said. Let me point out a few things in the Fox News article
that looked like opinion to me:

> The political overtones are obvious, not just in terms of the Bush
> administration's successes

I would have added "or failures" to this statement. That would make
it balanced.

> Some were bothered simply because this indicated that Iraq was being
> handled well

A clear shot at people who don't think Iraq is being handled well
and irrelevant to a discussion of murder rates in Baghdad. And there
are no supporting facts or data.

> The claim did not sit well with those pushing to renew the assault
> weapons ban (search) in our own country.

A clear shot at gun control types. There was no need to bring this
into a "factual" discussion of the murder rate in Baghdad. Again there
are no supporting facts or data.

I would imagine the reason these statements are included is to
inclusively support the positions (Bush is doing a good job,
Iraq is being handled well, gun control advocates are wrong) with the
actual facts used to prove the actual point. Which is well made
and proven with the facts as you note. But Lott really didn't
have to drag along the hot button side issues.

- Greg

Denys Beauchemin wrote:

> Many years ago, a good friend of mine by the name of F. Alfredo Rego
> wrote an article in which he explained how to read a manual.  I am
> sure it is at his web site and I urge you to read it.  I would
> suggest to the folks that when they next read an article or view a
> news report, to be on the lookout for words or turns of phrase that
> denote "opinion" as opposed to "reporting."  If you are reading the
> opinion page, that is one thing, but if you are reading page 1, look
>  at the story, see how they say things, especially in the first
> paragraph.  Check the title against the story itself.  Many times the
>  title is misleading.  Read the story to the end, sometimes the
> "reporter" leaves important facts for the last paragraph, which in
> many instances is not even read.  I have seen stories totally
> contradict themselves at the end.
>
> If a statistic is used, where does it come from?  Was it made up on
> the spot? A tactic widely used by the left and usually unchallenged
> by the "reporter."  If a statistic is attributed to someone or some
> organization, that does not automatically make it right.  It could be
>  misused or the source could have fabricated it outright.  Check it
> out.
>
> I do not want you to believe everything that comes from known
> "Right-wing" news services either, you need to study those as well.
> However in my experience, these stories and books are more researched
>  and have more backup than the regular (aka Left-wing) press and
> books. They have to be since people will question those more.
>
> It is a good thing to read both sides of the story.  It just takes
> more time.
>
> Denys
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, * *
>  etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>


--
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 *