| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Culture Wars | |
| CJR's Pein gets fisked by da Man (re: CBS forgeries) | |
| 2005-01-15 | |
| Absolutely marvelous fisking of Pein's article on the CBS forgeries by the expert he questions, Joe Newcomer. KA-POW! (I know this needs to go to Page 71).
Hat tip: Charles Johnson and his Littlegreenfootballs. I was both amused and dismayed at the recent article published in the Columbia Journalism Review. I was amused because it is, like most of the attempts to justify the "validity" of the CBS memos, completely ridiculous, and like most such articles, written by someone without the slightest qualification to actually make such an assessment. I was dismayed because it was published in what appears to be a legitimate publication, and as such reflects the "best thinking" that should be represented by such a journal. This is very sad. If we think Dan Rather's being hoaxed by an inept forgery is bad, just wait until the people with the apparent quality of journalistic training this article represents get out there. Apparently, critical thinking is not held in high esteem. The School of Journalism should find this article embarrassing. (If they do not, then the University should be deeply embarrassed to have such a school). It is worth pointing out that good reporter will listen, and learn, and do research to learn. Pein apparently takes the attitude that if he can't understand something with a superficial reading, it must be either wrong, or unworthy of any effort to understand. He is very much of the school "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts". Is this what we are expecting our journalism schools to produce now? When someone makes an assertion, it is expected that they will be able to prove their assertion. CBS made the assertion that these memos were authentic without any proof whatsoever. There was at least one person with whom I appeared on Fox News Network who was a professional document examiner, who informed CBS on Sunday (before the story broke) that she could not authenticate the documents. They chose to ignore her and claim them authentic anyway. The trick is apparently to keep asking experts more and more restricted questions until you find an expert who will answer "yes" to some tiny specialized query. Then expand the answer to cover the entire original question. Example: find a man who has written a book on signature analysis, in which he says it is impossible to authenticate a copy of a signature. Convince him to claim a faxed copy of a signature could have been authentic (he did not authenticate it; he merely said he could not exclude it from being authentic). Generalize from this that the documents are authentic. This seems to set a new standard for investigative reporting. Not to mention a new standard for "analytic thought". Let me address some of my concerns with Pein's article. I'm getting a bit tired of this whole affair, so I tend to put more whimsy and sarcasm into this discussion than I would put in a scientific report. Otherwise, I'd find the whole thing a lot more tedious than it has become. | |
| Posted by:Brett_the_Quarkian |
| #5 I was dismayed because it was published in what appears to be a legitimate publication, and as such reflects the "best thinking" that should be represented by such a journal. This is very sad. What is sad is that Charles thought CJR was a legitimate publication till writing this. I thought he, abovce all, would know the emperor has no clothes. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-01-15 7:37:04 PM |
| #4 Dishman - tell us something we didn't know. ;-p |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-01-15 7:08:38 PM |
| #3 Executive summary.. Pein wrote from his ass. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2005-01-15 7:03:44 PM |
| #2 I fell asleep - was there an executive summary? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-01-15 6:58:20 PM |
| #1 Thanks for proper conclusion placement. |
| Posted by: Brett_the_Quarkian 2005-01-15 6:53:45 PM |