[Imc-dnc-discuss] "and maybe a brief description of the BSF?"

[timothy ledwith]

When I first read Andy Pyles post I dug his criticism I think because I 
often find myself frustrated at the one-sidedness of too many on the Left 
(or whatever). I also am someone who appreciates complete journalism. After 
reading the rebuttal though I have to aggree with Matthew Williams but would 
also add that A.P.'s criticism, though I didn't really mind the aggressive 
language, was really out of context. The original "puff-peice" was in no way 
(at least from what i read) an investigative report or non-bias 
informational peice so why would it need to include the "other side". 
Furthermore I have to ask what you mean by "radical journalism" when what 
your calling for is one of the most basic of journalistic standards. When 
using that criteria of giving both sides what then makes it "radical"? 
Writing it on florescent paper with lazer-lines in the backround? If you 
abide by that transparent wahy of journalstic writing than the format's 
going to be the same whether the topic is about Leftist Guerrillas or the 
National Park Service. I am one who definitely prefers to read both sides of 
a story, but I think that standard should be used where it doesn't apply.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page – FREE 
download! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/