Comment 2879

By schmadrian (registered) | Posted January 10, 2007 at 14:47:05

Just to clarify what I'm getting at here, I'm reminded of two recent news stories, one referenced here on RTH. The first is the 'Pedestrians Have Some Nerve' story, which seems to just jump on the de rigeur notion of the bullying done by drivers. As I commented, I'd like to hear more about the situation before executing a further round of bandwagonism. And the other has to do with the Meriam Bedard case that unfolded around Christmas. Almost nowhere did I see certain facts about that case actually presented front-and-center, facts that change the entire complexion of the situation.

My point is that you cannot make a strong case for a cause if you're riding on the fuel of personal prejudices, no matter how rich that fuel is. On top of this, it's not enough to simply go with an accepted view of the facts, because as we've seen in the mainstream media, much is regurgitated, the public's perception being that 'Well, if they keep telling us this, then it must be true.' What was that that Stalin said about repeating untruths until they become as good as truths...?

You guys there at RTH have established theh publication as an alternative to the mainstream, I'm assuming, in the partial hope that you'll not fall victim –or be yet another player in– the 'mass media conflagration of facts'. So come on, keep your standards high. Your readers, as well as you, deserve as much.

So I challenge you to refute what this commenter has presented. Point-by-point. Because if all you're going to be doing here is making noise, noise not borne out of verifiable fact (or supportable opinion), then really, how are you any better than the politicians you criticize, other than the fact that you're not taking any money out of your 'constituents' pockets?

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds