« Iraq-Kuwait Diplomacy | Main | Buckyballs And The Precautionary Principle »
June 23, 2005
Anderson Cooper Needs A History Lesson
RDS at The Ten O'Clock Scholar delivers a sharp smack to Anderson Cooper of CNN over Anderson's outcome-based "interview" with Franklin Graham. Graham and Anderson's exchange turned to the question of Islam vs. Christianity, and Anderson turned reverse rhetorical somersaults in his attempt to deny the obvious about the fundatmental differences in the two religions:
For example, [Anderson] pointed out that "Christians" have done bad things too -- which is a dumb argument in the first place, as it doesn't address th eunderlying philosphy, but merely demonstrates people are fallible, which we already know. That misses the point entirely about judging the utility of the philosophy.
But worse, he used the example of "Christians performed the Holocaust." And Graham didn't correct his historical error.
Hitler was not a Christian. Nazis were not Christians! [...]
Naziism embraced a crackpot pagan mysticism drawn from Teutonic pre-Christian myths.
As I said yesterday, the MSM is relentless and insidious in its bias, and subtle, too. The slant of a headline, a tone of voice in questioning, information not falsified but merely omitted--all these add up over time to the establishment of "truths" that have never been subjected to a rigorous test of logic and reason.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.thebernoullieffect.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/210
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Anderson Cooper Needs A History Lesson:
» Carnival of The Chillin #2 from The Strata-Sphere
I did not receive very many responses for inputs to this Carnival - so I went hunting for them! Also, last time out I focused solely on issues on judicial appointment, ect. So the 2nd part of this Carnival shows off posts from Coalition of The Chil... [Read More]
Tracked on June 26, 2005 06:14 PM
Comments
The "news" is becoming less about reporting current events, and more of a game of telephone from 3rd grade. Guy A says something to Guy B, who repeats it to C. By the time it gets to the newsdesk in it's morphed form, it's a bona-fide fact ready to put on the air.
I actually debated a liberal blogger for a while (fargazmo.blogspot.com) about whether it was good journalism to base an entire news story that has a serious detrimental affect on our nation's security on the basis of only a single unverified anonymous source. I said it wasn't. He said I was favoring censorship by big government.
Didn't a comment from an anonymous source used to be the start of an investigation, not the end of one?
Posted by: Jim Voigt at June 24, 2005 11:20 AM
