Re: Moyers Probe of Press and Iraq Coming
- From: Thumper <jaylsmith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:36:27 -0400
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 00:45:30 -0500, Matthew Scott
<scottm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
NoName wrote:
Matthew Scott wrote:
Let's see if I understand what to seem to advise. Since believing that
hindsight is always 20/20 leads to faulty evaluation of commentators
who retrospectively evaluate events, some other criteria should be
employed to savor their interpretations? What, prezactly?
That is a question historians struggle with. After all,
history is hindsight, an accounting of and interpretation
of events that happened in the past as seen in the present.
The pieces of history of any event that eventually are
put together into some coherent story were gathered from
all sorts of sources, the reliability of which is hard to
ascertain in many cases. Many people involved in any
historical event saw that event differently. A good
historian has to pull together various threads and accounts
and try to make sense of it all.
Given. Perhaps I was unclear in that I meant re-interpretation of
*current* events, not "history". Too many arm chair generals like
Moyers provide instant criticism and analysis of mistakes made if
things don't go precisely as they might wish.
Instant criticism? This is a look back 4 years. Nothing instant
about that.
Thumper
It seems Moyers has done this and will present his conclusions.
You are free to accept or reject them. Moyers is doing nothing
unusual.
I agree that Moyers is providing his interpretation and conclusions
about current events, not history.
Read the biographies of many who have been connected to
important world events. You will find each of them has a
different take or interpretation -- different at least to
some degree.
Folk wisdom advises waiting 50 years (or some other lengthy time)
before attempting to analyze an important world event or write a
biography, to give the participants time to die off and in the hope
that most if not all of the less-well publicized aspects of the event
will have become known. Moyers points out, "the press has yet to come
to terms with its role in enabling the Bush Administration to go to
war on false pretenses." I conclude that Moyers interprets events as
staged to justify "false pretenses".
Since no one is going to hand you the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but, you, the thinking reader or viewer must do
some thinking about it for yourself.
Go back and re-read Mitchell's article.
.
- References:
- Re: Moyers Probe of Press and Iraq Coming
- From: Matthew Scott
- Re: Moyers Probe of Press and Iraq Coming
- From: Jake
- Re: Moyers Probe of Press and Iraq Coming
- From: Matthew Scott
- Re: Moyers Probe of Press and Iraq Coming
- From: NoName
- Re: Moyers Probe of Press and Iraq Coming
- From: Matthew Scott
- Re: Moyers Probe of Press and Iraq Coming
- Prev by Date: Re: Listen to Alex Baldwin to see... okaaay...
- Next by Date: Re: The "Sensitivity" of NPR
- Previous by thread: Re: Moyers Probe of Press and Iraq Coming
- Next by thread: Re: Moyers Probe of Press and Iraq Coming
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|