[Vision2020] Re: Vision2020 digest, Vol 1 #876 - 11 msgs

[Dale Courtney]

Andreas asks:
> The flyer, which is not quoted in the story, isn't quoted in the story, is
>it?

No, it's *not* quoted in the story. The story was written *from* the flier
(is it plagiarism to use an anonymous flier to write a journalistic story?).

The quotes you read in the Daily News were lifted verbatim from the flier.

> If someone in the Daily News saw it posted and then decided to
> investigate, or was, for instance, informed through Vision 2020 -- which
> has a credibility about equivalent to anonymous flyers hanging on
> billboards -- would that constitute some sort of breach of journalistic
> ethics? The Daily News does have to get its information /somewhere/.
> Information is where you find it.

Andreas, this is an excellent point. Truth is truth, no matter where you
find it.

*However*, the flier wasn't accurate; it was designed to slander and
mislead.

A half-truth is a lie. Again, my example from previous post: if I were to
write that "McClure showed up at work at the DN sober today," that would
be factually correct. But it implies something *completely* different. Do
you see that? Truth is more than just being factually correct -- it's also
*completely* correct.

And *this* "National Enquirer" tactic is what I so object about the DN's
"reporting" on this matter. It was designed to be sensationalistic
journalism,
leaking "the rest of the story" over days -- so that circulation would
increase.

> /Confirmation/, on the other hand, is not so easily found. And I do
> believe that Pastor Wilson & company have fairly thoroughly confirmed the
> facts of the story -- right?

First, Do you mean that they confirmed the half-truths? Or that they
confirmed
the *actual* truth?

Second, how do you "confirm" a lie?

As Paul Harvey says, here's the "rest of the story":
http://lists2.fsr.net/pipermail/vision2020/2003-October/004826.html

You cannot have someone release the two books simultaneously (the second
being "The Biblical Offense of Racism"), publicly debate a white
supremacist, and then have the DN publish the half-truth that he supports
slavery.

It's one thing to say that someone supports Southern Slavery, it's another
thing to say that the only alternative to ending slavery was the way that
the North did it. See:
http://lists2.fsr.net/pipermail/vision2020/2003-October/004830.html

Funny, the list has devolved to "if you don't accept the ending of slavery
the *way* the North ended it (with massive bloodshed) verses the peaceful
the way that *every* other slave-holding state ended it, then you are a
racist.

Do you see the entire wrong-headedness of that argument? The Left, that
generally supports peaceful solutions to conflicts, are acting more like
Republicans in this matter -- kill them all and let God sort it out.

Hmmm, what political party was Lincoln in?

Best,
Dale