[Vision2020] Journalistic Integrity

[Nate Wilson]

Andreas et al,
    As I already pointed out, there are Q&A sessions during the 
conference. With as many attendees as we have had in the past, questions 
to Wilkins, my father, or George Grant (yes, there is another speaker 
and boy is he incriminating. Ready, set, google!) on the subject of 
slavery have occasionally been posed. Had you been there when those 
questions were asked you would have heard (from all three men) a 
thirty-second version of what you could have heard from my father at 
CRF's forum on the racism of Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger. But 
I won't bother repeating it, as it would bore the witch-hunters. The 
Statesman's byline for their front page rendition was (I'm running from 
memory) "Pair to give 'biblical' defense of practice at UI conference." 
I know they're down that-a-way, but are they that stupid? I mean really, 
the DN story wasn't misleading at all, so how could they throw a byline 
like that on the story? You can call it semantics all you want but how 
would this more honest angle have sold local papers? Doug Wilson and 
Steve Wilkins (whom the SPLC doesn't like) will be doing a conference on 
Revolution and Modernity and somebody in the audience may or may not ask 
a question about slavery during a Q&A session. Now I'm gripped. I sure 
think the Spokesman and the Statesman would have picked that one up. Cheers.

NDW