[Vision2020] Journalistic integrity

[Dale Courtney]

>   1. Never says conference is about slavery. Says book is. 
> Does say slavery and history will be discussed and Wilson and 
> Wilkins will be doing the discussing. Again, is this not so?

That is *not* so. 

>   2. Carelessness? The version I have is pretty damn well 
> written, allows Wilson a chance to defend the book, talks to 
> Potok from SPLC, who despite all the drivel on this list, is 
> regularly quoted by respected news sources as an expert on 
> hate and extremism. Maybe Alexis made mistakes in the 
> original version (again, which I don't have) but I'm sure 
> she(he?) cares.

There are errors in the original (I don't have a copy of The Idaho
Spokesman). 

Do they care? If they did, wouldn't they fix them? 

>   3. Omission? 
>   As I read the Bacharach story, it's about the controversial 
> work of two people who may (or may not?) be featured at this 
> History Conference. That's fair game in my mind and certainly 
> less of a snoozer than Burke, Byron and Marx, three of the 
> dead old white guys you so thankfully included with your web 
> link of the conference.

And that's *just* the point. The story generated interest because of the
incorrect topic -- slavery. The correct topic wouldn't generate any interest
from most (except the Marxists in town). 

>   4. I still haven't seen anything that says the conference 
> will only be about slavery. If the DNews said so in a 
> headline, then that point probably should be corrected by the 
> newspaper.

Yea, I'll say!

Best,
Dale