|
perhaps so, irate. i succumb to the illusions generated by a message board once again. my apologies if my inferences about your position ran counter to how you operate in 3-d life.
i guess the problem is that you take your news gathering habits to be universal, just as i took my assumptions about yours to fit into a pattern that i--for better or worse--know about from quantitative data--there is a really quite depressing study from cornell about american attitudes toward muslims that contains a range of quite damning data about patterns of news gathering and conservative politics--i dont have time at the moment to search the link up, but you could probably get it via the title (which is i think accurate) and the cornell affiliation.
as for the point that started your post--well sure....well no----you assume that the premises of the argument i made would operate in the same register as claims to objectivity. they dont. you were tricked by the form of the statement. or because all there was was the statement, you reached reasonable conclusions that turn out to be false.
this one would be easy to explain over a beer in real life--i could attempt a version here if you like, but only after i take a certain impatient husky for a walk. but in th meantime, think how this question would be resolved from a roughly marxist viewpoint, and you'll work out the premises for yourself.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|