100 facts and 1 opinion

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by Blake

I vigorously disagree.

1. No fact exists independent of a theory/explanatory context. This is perfectly acceptable journalism.

2. Despite a couple of dubious choices of phrase, the facts are indeed facts and the opinion is thoroughly justifiable.

All blow-by-blow details to be supplied tomorrow (in my time zone, actually, later today).

I look forward to your analysis and argument, Blake.

In the meantime, I have looked into our esteemed Mr. Legum. It seems that my lawyer detector was working earlier, as he is in fact a lawyer working as the Deputy Research Director for a liberal think tank called the Center for American Progress. He serves in the same capacity at the political action committee named American Progress Action Fund. He's not a journalist. He is a left-wing politico who has written many op-ed pieces published on the web.

One of Legum's sources--in fact the very first one he cites--is his own think tank's website. It is not the only time he cites that website as his fact source. In effect, he cites himself as the source for some of his facts. That is not an acceptable practice in journalism. So much for his disinterested facts.

Here's a link to the center's website introducing Mr. Legum.

Center for American Progress--Judd Legum

I don't begrudge Legum's right to speak his mind. I am irritated at his calling his thinly veiled rant "100 Facts and 1 Opinion," however. It is deliberately misleading. That he subtitles the piece "The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration" makes the matter even worse. His "facts," to the extent that nearly each of them contains editorial slant, are most definitely arguable. Legum simply undermines his own credibility by ostensibly claiming to be objective in the title.

I sense that any further discussion of this topic in this thread is going to revolve around the meaning of "fact" in this context.

If you grant Mr. Legum license to insert blatant left-wing editorials into his "facts," then you must also grant Bush and his right-wing supporters a similar license. Here's an example of the mess you invite by doing so.

"In 1994, One Year After The First World Trade Center Bombing, Kerry Proposed An Amendment To Cut Intelligence Budget By $6 Billion Across The Board."

That, too, is a fact, using Legum's apparent definition of "fact." It's unfortunate for Mr. Legum and Senator Kerry that it comes from the georgewbush.com website, but when you define facts as broadly as Legum does, you have to accept right wing editorializing as well. Otherwise, you are simply engaging in self-delusion.

It should be obvious that the above statement about Kerry's proposed amendment, when juxtaposed with the "one year after" clause, implies that Kerry is soft on terrorism. I submit that said statement is no less a "fact" than nearly any of Legum's 100 "facts."

Let's call a spade a spade, shall we? Legum's "facts" are partisan rhetoric.

Cool Hand