[PREV - RADICAL_FREEZE]    [TOP]

DUBIOUS_FLARE

                                                   August 10, 2007
An issue of policy:

What do you do about authors
who are obviously unreliable
characters, but with a knack
for turning a phrase?


I was once thinking about leading off
a piece with a quote from Christopher
Hitchens.  A friend of mine saw it, and      Hitchens was a hardcore
commented in a sad tone "Hitchens, again."   lefty who turned "pro-war"
                                             when it was fashionable,
  I dropped the idea of using                and is now trying to
  his quote because I decided                wriggle back.
  I didn't have anything
  interesting to say about                      If his spat with Noam Chomsky
  it... but if I did want to                    is any guide, he has a hard
  use it, then what?                            time focusing on the facts.

  Maintaining a rigid separation
  between speech and speaker is
  a principle only observed         Attacking someone for engaging
  intermittently, at best.          in "ad hominem attacks" is
                                    always a convenient distraction
  It's difficult to                 move, because everyone pays
  quote someone without             attention to reputation in some
  conveying the                     form or another, so there's
  impression that you               always some sort of "attacking
  endorse the speaker.              the person".

    Quotation in general has
    a reek of "argument based
    on authority" about it.

    But avoiding quotation
    has at least a whiff of
    plagiarism about it...





Another case           There's a very minor
would be Andrew        point where I thoroughly
Cockburn.              disagree with Cockburn:

I often like his          COUGHING_UP_FLEMING
columns (and
often agree with                                  But it could be that this
them, which is                                    is telling: he's spreading
not *quite* the                                   an unverifiable story
same thing).                                      because it's such a *good*
                                                  story...
He articulated the suspicion (which
perhaps should be obvious) that the
"9/11 Truth Movement" people really        A_CHOICE_OF_DENIAL
want to believe that only the big
guys can be behind a big thing.  The           He also accuses
thought that a *small* group could             the truthies of
pull off the "9/11" hit is scary.              racism: a bunch
                                               of *arabs* got in
   On the other hand, Cockburn                 a clever hit?
   has said some pretty silly                  Ridiculous!
   things... he's looking like
   another compulsive contrarian:                 I have mixed feelings about
   good at coming up with unusual                 that one. Plausible, but
   ideas, perhaps, less good at                   it's such an easy cheap
   doing so reliably.                             shot... it ought to be
                                                  documented better.
                  It often seems that
   Notably:       there's pressure on                But then the entire
   Cockburn       columnists to be                   thesis is somewhere
   has come       outrageous, to attract             between "insight"
   down on        attention by saying                and "mind-reading",
   the side       borderline-crazy                   and probably an
   of the         things-- ala, say,                 over-generalization.
   "global        Camille Paglia.
   warming
   skeptics".     It's a fine-line between
                  an "iconoclastic thinker"
   In itself      and a "fame-whore".          Maybe Cockburn himself
   this does                                   is fair game for the
   not bother        From this point of        "mind-reading" treatment...
   me -- but         view, tedious writing
   he seems to       might be considered a
   be doing a        virtue...
   bad job of
   it.                    (At last I am
                          vindicated.)
   He shows little
   awareness that
   he's making a
   case for a
   fringe theory
   and hence on
   shakey ground.

   Instead he blows smoke,
   tries to puff up weak         At this point, if you present
   references, and so on.        the readers with an Andrew
                                 Cockburn quote, they might be
                                 forgiven for wondering what
                                 you think you're doing.


--------
[NEXT - THE_ANTIBOB]