Fascinating for two reasons. The AP claim is demonstrably true. In an argument there have to be at least two contesting views and this is an instance of such a dichotomy. He asked, they refused. Of course it is an entirely different discussion as to whether his ask was reasonable, whether the refusal was reasonable, or whether there is an altogether different way to frame either the perceived problem or the possible solution.
But all AP is doing is correctly framing the dilemma. There is a shutdown because the two parties refuse to reach an agreement.
I find it fascinating that a mainstream journalist is flummoxed by a proper and indisputable framing of a factually unambiguous situation.
Yet that correct formulation is unacceptable to journalist Ian Millhiser who wishes to suppress the debate because a correct framing of the dilemma weakens his policy or ideological agenda. His solution to disagreement is a desire to suppress, not encourage the hard work of compromise or the even harder work of more imaginative solutioning. And that is the second fascinating point. A professional journalist, whose very career depends on open and free communication, is happy to ditch rationality and freedom of speech when it differs from his opinion, even if factually true.
Rationally almost inconceivable, but there you have it. These are our Owellian times when "liberal" journalists wish to police free factual speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment