<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Monday, October 03, 2005

MSM (NYT): Misrepresentation or Simply Stupidity? 

This op-ed from the NY Sun neatly summarizes the noise over former Secretary of Education William Bennett's comments on his radio show about abortion, crime rates and black people. So first we have comments taken starkly out of context, accusation and condemnation of Bennett. Then we review the entire transcript and find, lo and behold, Bennett said no such thing -- in fact, he rejected the very thing he was accused of saying as morally reprehensible in the next sentence. Of course, he was repeating a theory which came from a book (Freakonomics) which had been reviewed favorably by none other than -- the New York Times...which apparently missed the memo on one of its authors core arguments. Apparently, a utilitarian argument for abortion is based on the notion that it leads to reduced crime rates...Oh boy! That is a real pretzel maker (it twists you) for the politically correct prochoice crowd and the politically incorrect prolife crowd.

For me its just another example of really really bad reporting. For full disclosure, I've not read the book. But I recall TH has...

6 Comments:

By Blogger Catchy Pseudonym, at Mon Oct 03, 11:58:00 AM:

The real offense is saying that getting rid of black babies (therefore people) would lower the crime rate. To me that's says volumes on how he thinks. In essence, he's saying black people are the main cause of crime. Then he focuses his defensive argumentes on saying "I didn't say we should really abort black babies." He and the media are completely missing why that statement is offensive.  

By Blogger Cardinalpark, at Mon Oct 03, 12:36:00 PM:

Read the article and transcript. I don't love Bennett, but it is not what he said...  

By Blogger Catchy Pseudonym, at Mon Oct 03, 01:44:00 PM:

I don't know. I've read the transcript and I've listen to it. I have to sign up to read the op-ed piece and I hate filling out forms, so I didn't read that, so I readily admit that I might be missing something. But the transcript didn't change my mind on the whole thing.

I think the racism of his statement (whether he is a racist or just an idiot) is buried a layer below what everyone is arguing about. I understand that he thinks aborting all black babies is reprehensible, but to me that's not the point. It was that he chose to phrase his point like he did, either out of stupidity or racism.  

By Blogger Cardinalpark, at Mon Oct 03, 03:10:00 PM:

He didn't phrase it that way. He wa restating somebody elses theory. Then he repudiated somebody else's theory.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Mon Oct 03, 06:08:00 PM:

Cardinalpark, just as Bennett did, you're misrepresenting "Freakanomics." Leavitt doesn't bring race into the theory. His argument is entirely class-based. Bennett showed his hand by bringing in "black babies."  

By Blogger Catchy Pseudonym, at Wed Oct 05, 08:55:00 AM:

Um... no, it's what he said. You don't have to be on a higher plain to get it, just have common sense and look at the words. People's choice of words says a lot about who they are. That's a fundamental part of human interaction. No rocket science here.  

Post a Comment


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?