|
[Previous entry: "This is a job for Ground Force!"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Ground Force cont'd"] 26 June 2003: "In which I contravene recommended journalistic practice"From The Economist Style Guide (7th edition): Do not be too pleased with yourself. Don't boast of your own cleverness by telling readers that you correctly predicted something or that you have a scoop. You are more likely to bore or irritate them than to impress them.With that in mind, the concluding paragraph from my "Allied Force"/"Iraqi Freedom" entry of 24-Jun-2003: If it emerges that the [Bush] administration did lie, this would be a serious matter. But it would still be a separate—albeit related—issue from the question of whether "Iraqi Freedom" was justified.And for the sake of comparison, the opening paragraph of the latest column from Spinsanity, "What's at stake in the WMD debate" by Ben Fritz, of 24-Jun-2003: A very important debate, perhaps one of the most important in years, is brewing over two separate but related questions: Did President Bush lie to convince our nation to go to war? And was the war in Iraq justified given that the US has not found the weapons of mass destruction it allegedly possessed?Emphasis in bold mine. It's an obvious formulation, of course, but I do feel slightly pleased at having thrown it out one day earlier than Spinsanity. The Spinsanity piece does a far better job of dissecting the debate and the errors being committed on both sides than I have, so check it out. |
Navigation: home archives backgrounder Blogs:
au currant Miscellanea:
Care to contribute |
