[Vision2020] Journalistic integrity

Douglas dougwils@moscow.com
Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:24:36 -0800


Bill says I have been stepping away from my little booklet. Here comes the 
level of debate to which we are all acccustomed. Have not.

When this fracas broke out, I went back and read it again, and still agree 
with everything in it. We still publish it, still sell it. Backing away? 
Explaining something to someone who does not really want to understand it 
is not the same thing as backing away. But the subject head is not about my 
views on slavery, but rather about journalistic integrity.

The link between slavery and the history conference was made by that Daily 
News retainer, Anonymous. He circulated a flyer which made it appear that 
the subject of the conference was slavery. The Daily News passed on this 
impression, despite me telling the reporter that the conference was not 
about slavery. We are doing biographies of men like Lord Byron, Marx, 
Robespierre. The Daily News is an AP paper so the Statesman picked it up. 
Who is responsible for this inaccuracy?

In the meantime, related to this issue,Tom Hansen has started boycotting 
Bucers. Is this because Bucers is owned by two multi-racial families? Does 
Tom have something against black children? Inquiring people want to know. 
He does live in North Idaho, and he is boycotting a business owned by mixed 
families. This is deeply troubling.


Douglas Wilson

At 10:24 AM 10/27/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>    I am not representing the Daily News, but I think it is clear that 
> Doug Wilson and his various buddies are trying to kill the messenger 
> since they really do not enjoy the message.
>    The message is that Doug has been exposed as clearly and directly 
> supporting the abhorrent practice of human slavery.  Wilson has lately 
> been stepping carefully away from what he co-wrote in that booklet 
> ("Southern Slavery: As It Was").  He now says he really meant that 
> slavery should have been ended without the Civil War, but the book is 
> quite obvious.  Wilson said that human slavery was justified in the Bible 
> and justified historically by the wonderfully humane system of slavery 
> developed in the South.  Wilson has been exposed writing blatantly untrue 
> assessments about the nature of Southern slavery (ask any historian).
>    Since Wilson is worried about this message getting out, he is sending 
> out the troops to attack the Daily News as the messenger.    The topic of 
> Wilson's February conference is "Revolution and Modernity."  However,  it 
> is accurate for the Daily News to indicate that a discussion of Southern 
> slavery will be incorporated into the conference.  Wilson and his 
> co-author (Steve Wilkins) from the slavery book are both featured 
> speakers.  In previous years, these annual conferences sponsored by 
> Wilson's church have included discussions of slavery whatever the stated 
> focus of that year's conference.   Wilson acknowledged that he expected 
> the topic of slavery to arise at the February conference as well.
>    I thought the Daily News article was more than fair to Wilson, giving 
> him plenty of space to define his views.    Looking back at the published 
> article, I was amused to read again the subtitle: "Debate, emotions 
> already stirred as preface to February conference at UI."   Yup, that 
> about sums it up.
>Douglas wrote:
>>Ambrose Bierce once defined ink as a "villainous compound of 
>>tanno-gallate of iron, gum-arabic and water, chiefly used to facilitate 
>>the infection of idiocy and promote intellectual crime."
>>On Friday, The Idaho Statesman picked up the article which had previously 
>>run in the Daily News. They ran it with this by-line: "Pair to give their 
>>"biblical" defense of practice at U of I conference."
>>1. The conference is not on slavery. Never has been. The Daily News 
>>really needs to quit relying on anonymous flyers as part of their 
>>crackerjack reporting team. The savings in payroll are not really worth 
>>the embarrassment.
>>2. No, we are not going to give a defense of slavery at the conference.
>>3. It is not a U of I conference.
>>4. Having shouted their error on the front page, the Daily News had 
>>whispered a teeny correction later on. The Statesman must have missed it 
>>I would like to ask Nathan Alford to respond, or someone at the Daily 
>>News. Who is responsible for misrepresenting our history conference in 
>>this egregious way? What are you going to do about it?
>>Douglas Wilson
>>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the 
>>communities of the Palouse since 1994.