From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: "blind loyalty"
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:20:41 GMT
Reply-To: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA
X-Fidonet: Blink Talk Conference

Index Number: 23854

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

Hi, Jamal!

You take me to task for my use of Ms. Cunningham's description of NAC as
an example of the inaccuracies that, IMHO, typify her article in July's
Baltimore Magazine entitled "Blind Loyalty".  In doing so, you
essentially employee the loyer's device of the "alternative defenses".
That is, you case that, on the one hand, by common standards, Ms.
Cunningham's description of NAC as an "independent" organization would
be considered accurate but if, on the other hand, NAC was (or is) not
truly independent -- and you admit that there were/are good reasons for
questioning that supposed independence -- that NAC was not essential to
Ms. Cunningham's story and, hence, that such an inaccuracy does not
matter.  You challenge me to come up with more persuasive examples to
support my claims that the article exhibits bias and that the statements
of interviewees were not thoroughly investigated.

To my mind, Jamal, the foregoing doesn't wash.  To my mind, a reporter
should, strive to be absolutely accurate.  Ms. Cunningham had two months
to do this story; that should have been ample time to research all
aspects of the story, including NFB's tangle with NAC, what NAC thought
of NFB, why NFB tangled with NAC and the origins of NAC and where NAC
got its funds.  The fact that she mentions NAC at all indicates that she
had some knowledge that NFB considered NAC's existence an issue.  Why
not research just a bit farther and scope out NAC?  After all, she might
have come up with some anti-NFB dirt.  In the process, she would have
discovered NAC's funding sources and this would have given her at least
some caution in making a statement such as she made.

In a sense, however, you are absolutely correct; NAC is only at the
periphery of Ms. Cunningham's story.  However, IMHO, can be considered a
touchstone by which we can evaluate the rest of her work, at least in
this article.  True, I could have cited many other instances (and have,
I believe, in subsequent posts).  However, some on this echo have hinted
broadly that I have waxed over-prolific in my writings so I was
endeavoring not to write a great ptome.  So I confined myself to citing
a few instances of what I consider to be misleading writing, maintaining
that they were and are illustrative of the problems exhibited by this
article.  C'est la vie.

As for subjectivity, I do not doubt that there is a place for personal
opinion and subjective analysis in journalism.  I maintain, however,
that it should be clearly labeled such and should be set apart from
factual reporting.  To be sure, Ms. Cunningham's piece was, to a
certain, extent, supposed to be impressionistic.  Even so, however, I
maintain that this does not give her license to tell only part of the
story or to phrase things in such a way that subjective judgments
masquerade as objective reporting.

Mike Freeman
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org