for the record, i did not say much about the charges against the documentary in themselves.
i conceded that the charges might be true....i am more careful that you would prefer, onetime.
had i made the argument you impute to me, which would be simply an inversion of the text as it is, then none of this would be interesting at all: not to me, not to you, not to anyone.
i usually do not quote myself, but here it seems appropriate:
Quote:
|
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.
|