ok so in one thread you complain about the hall of mirrors that is information circulation within the mainstream media when it runs counter to your political agenda and in another you embrace exactly the same problem because you imagine that it benefits your boy bush.
nice.
then in this one,
you ignore a legion of problems with the way in which the factoids in the washington post edito were selected and presented.
you ignore the more extended version of the same information presented by one of the authors of the book that the wapo edito writer references (indirectly of course) and the--to say the least--complication of the edito and your interpretation of the information that you rely on for your fatuous conclusions.
so if i understand the procedure you apply to information it goes like this:
1. factoids, no matter how arbitrary, no matter how indefensable, are cool with you if they fit with your political predispositions
2. and if they dont, sweeping, shabby ill-considered claims about some kind of media conspiracy are just hunky dory.
3. never acknowledge critiques until they reach a critical mass that forces you to abandon a thread.
4. conflate this kind of idiocy with rational discourse.
excellent work.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|