I was originally going to pit the Post, but now I’m just not sure. Take a look at this article. Do you think it’s too puffy, too sympathetic to the lunatics? It just seems too cute to me. I’d like it to say flat out and unequivocably that 9/11 conspiracies are utter nonsense, but it doesn’t. It seems to me that with these theories becoming more popular–AFAICT, anyway–responsible journalists should take a firm stand against them and clearly and simply point out their flaws. The article in the current issue of Time does that, clearly labeling the theories “myths” and using a sidebar to give quick debunkings of some of the more popular rumors like the cruise missile in the Pentagon story and the WTC7 arguments. This just doesn’t do the job.
Giving both sides of the story is fine, when there are two sides to a story, as in the Iraq war or the abortion debate. But sometimes there just aren’t two sides to a story.
What do you think of the article? I didn’t post quotes because I’m really interested in your opinion of the overall tone.
I think 9/11 conspiracy theories are a heaping pile of merde, and I don’t have any problem with the article. It’s a straight news piece, and the primary subject, IMO, is not the conspiracy theories themselves, but the fact that so many otherwise rational people seem to believe in them, and profiling some of these people as examples.
I think the author and/or editor assume that the readers already have some familiarity with the pros and cons of 9/11 CTs, and therefore do not have to restate everything from first principles.
The news is that interest in conspiracy theories about 9/11 seems to be growing. I’ve never paid much attention to these theories myself, but I don’t find this comment by the Episcopal minister unreasonable:
The minister doesn’t claim to have all of the answers nor does the Washington Post. They and we may believe most of this to be poppycock, but until they are willing to academically debunk every angle (including the philosophical ones, how can they just declare that the opinions of others are wrong?
In tone, it is certainly the most ‘sympathetic’ (to the conspiracists) article I’ve seen in the mainstream media, although in another way it was somewhat unfair because it lumped together the ‘no planes’ people with the people who seem to have reasonable questions. Nonetheless, this could be evidence of the movement’s gaining credibility.
I monitor the Reynolds Wrap sales nationwide, and have noticed a tremendous uptick in the amount sold lately.
Some people, no matter how smart they appear on the outside, are dumber than a box of rocks on the inside. Many ministers, in my experience, are the biggest promoters of glurge other than morning dj’s.
Critical thinking skills are in woeful short supply. Always have been.