Pilot LTE “Expecting Better…”

https://pilotonline.com/opinion/letters/article_c7d731aa-0ec2-11e9-a5e7-036c28648530.html

3 thoughts on “Pilot LTE “Expecting Better…”

  1. Fair criticism of the Pilot and the article. And a reasoned letter outlining why the criticism was deserved.

    Contrast that with the unrelenting attacks by our president no matter the stories’ veracity, relevancy or sources.

    The origins and history of the 1st Amendment makes it clear that the purpose was to allow broad freedoms of criticism of government and effectively minimizing scrutiny for fairness or even truth except by the market and competitors.

    It is true that Trump does not relinquish his freedom of speech by becoming president. But that must be balanced by the fact that he is the administrator and executor of the laws of the nation and also a sworn defender of protected freedoms in the Constitution. When he attacks for the purposes of sowing confusion and loss of faith in the media, then we are in dangerous waters.

    The battles between Trump and the press are to a great deal caused and encouraged by him. He admitted so during his campaign and continues to do so as president.

    Like

  2. Retired naval officer Sherlock declared in his Pilot letter, “Both the Times and Post have left their journalistic integrity at the door in anything to do with Trump.”

    Strong charge.

    Mind you, I’m suspicious too about overhyping Vietnam draft avoidance. (I was there back then, and we can talk about all of that some other time.) So I’m ready to assume that the gentleman has a point about an article that, as a nonsubscriber, I can’t read.

    And I also don’t dispute that a general sense of horror at the Trump presidency permeates reporting somewhat, and permeates opinion pervasively, at two of the three papers I do subscribe to: the Times and the Post. (My third is the Daily Press; I quit the Pilot mainly because the two Tidewater dailies are now de facto one for most purposes.)

    Now please stand by for an example of what begging the question actually means, contrary to the current belief that it only means raising a question:

    Of course that permeation is ever present in the Post and the Times. Neither is crazy. Neither is ready to see the republic hobbled by a gangster demagogue who’s completely out of keeping with all the rest of American history–relentlessly intent on undermining everything from traditions of facts and evidence to common civic decency.

    Nor does either paper shy away from treating insanity as insanity, even if insanity sympathizers grotesquely construe that truth-telling as bias. Retired naval officer Sherlock hasn’t joined Sen. Romney, an actual Republican and an actual conservative, in addressing these enormities–even if it turns out he’s right about the limited issue of the president’s draft avoidance.

    (Begging the question, many will recall, actually means presuming as true and proven what the arguer is obligated actually to show as true and proven. In the immediately preceding paragraphs, I perped the rhetorical offense of begging the question. Sue me if you like, or shout at me, or whatever. After 3.5 years of the Trump nightmare, going all the way back to his squalid elevator descent, I’ve long since figured out that there’s not much point in volleying unheard arguments across the chasm.)

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s