Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
i think the argument i posted above was clear enough. i do not feel any need to add to it.
but i'll summarize what i was trying to say.
it refers to the way levels of claims are woven together in the national review text cited at the beginning of the thread.
it assumes that argument by interpretation of a text is a legitimate mode of proceeding. whether it is the mode that folk like best for aesthetic reasons is not really my problem. the mode in itself is legitimate.
the text as it stands functions as a kind of fact. pulling apart mixed levels of argument is one of many many ways in which that article can be attacked.
another would be to question the value of a national review hatchet piece in general.
another would be to cite r.g. burkett's involvement with such fine organizations as the swift boat veterans in order to undermine the credulity a reader might otherwise accord his book, which is the central touchstone one which the writer's project sits.
yet another would be to say that the audience for a national review hatchet job like this would be predisposed to believe burkett to be correct without having read the book on the basis of the title alone, which is what i was referring to when i said everything about this article relies on prior assumptions about the relationship of writer-journal-audience.
the linkage to a bigger project of revisionist history of vietnam should be self-evident--as should be the claim that the writer is not really that interested in attacking rather's professional conduct in this case of the "wall within" as the end of the article--if she was, the article would not have been cited here at all, i suspect. reporters screw up like this all the time. like irate said, it is good when they get called out on it , and frequently they are--read something like the columbia journalism review sometime...but this national review article uses rather and questions about his professional conduct for bigger purposes. if you cant see that, then there really is nothing more to be said.
|
Your arguments, including this one, are often unclear to me. Your style of writing and punctuation make it very difficult to decipher your intent and your point. I know I'm not the only one faced with such difficulty with regard to your posts.
From your above summary, am I correct in concluding that rather than discuss the facts presented you would prefer to debate the tactics of the debate? That it doesn't matter whether Dan Rather and his staff have previously demonstrated sloppy fact checking in their rush to broadcast? Since a "biased" book was pointed to in the text that this fact is no longer relevant?
Perhaps I am still just not understanding your point RB. And believe me I am trying.