From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Facts & Resources (was `Morality Vote')
Summary: What we get here isn't exactly _New England Journal of Medicine_.
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 01:57:57 GMT


Carol Nemec writes:

> I would like to thank Michael Kline for the information he posts.  I do
> not have access to much of the information and I appreciate having the
> facts and resources to back them up.

With all due respect, if your search for information relies heavily on
Christia posts then you're in pretty bad shape.

Many of the excerpts Mr Kline posts contain standard errors common to most
kinds of news media.  Both Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh seem to be in dire
need of philosophy classes, because neither man's arguments are worth the
electricity needed to display them.

If you want a clear picture, I suggest skipping virtually all broadcast
programs which feature extensive writing or interpretation.  Print media,
while also biased, can be re-read as needed, taken to the library to
double-check, and quoted precisely.  The semi-permanent nature of a newspaper
has advantages.

In any case, as I've said before, don't trust any of these sources.  They are
just people -- with few exceptions, they are no smarter than most people.  If
you are concerned about divining the facts from the reporting, you'll have to
do some work to find them.  Just taking what they say at face value will leave
you both confused and ill-informed.

If you have the luxury of a large and well-stocked library nearby, that is a
far better place to go.  You can find out whether you think Al Gore is a
`liberal' by looking in _Congressional Quarterly_ at his voting record, if you
care about the title that goes with him.  Far better is to ask "does he vote
in ways I agree with?"

 *

A quick plug:

For TV news, I like the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour.  They rely primarily on
interviews: during the election, they would have a Bush supporter, a Clinton
supporter, and a Perot supporter.  Each man would make his own case, answering
questions put to them by the interviewer, and taking issue with the answers
given by the others.  Except for guiding choice of topics, and ensuring that
everyone gets equal time to talk, the interviewers are little involved.  The
economy, education reform, crime, NAFTA, defense spending -- all of these were
hashed over by all sides of the discussion.

Five presidential candidates were interviewed during the campaign (Bush,
Clinton, Perot, the Libertarian, and somebody else from a party whose name I
forget), as were both major-party vice-presidential candidates, and several of
the wives.  When the "Casey v Planned Parenthood" case was decided by the
Supreme Court, they had someone from both the National Abortion Rights Action
League and the National Right To Life Foundation.  Both sides got to say their
piece.

Compared to the one-sided interpretations given by most programs, I've found
MacNeil/Lehrer most refreshing.  It's certainly far better than anything from
either the networks or the "anti-liberal" independent broadcasters.  (It's
also a good accompaniment to washing dishes.  8-)

Of course, you still have to filter what the guests themselves say -- they are
obviously going to be biased for their candidate/group/issue/party/theory, and
so what they say will have a slant.  But they tell you up front which side
they are on, and they don't pretend to be impartial -- at least you know what
the slant is and have some idea how to correct for it.

In any case, it's a much better place to get your facts than is Christia
(regardless of who is posting articles, and whether they are original pieces
or quotes from other sources).  And yes, my own articles are part of that
criticism.  When I say "Don't trust anybody!", I'm including myself.

Not even James Kiefer will ALWAYS be correct.  8^)


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Truthful, adj.  Dumb and illiterate." -- Ambrose Bierce
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU