The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

Reader Mail

AFTER THE TIMES
Re: The Washington Prowler's What Lies Beneath:

Your item in Washington Prowler about my departure from The New York Times last December contains numerous inaccuracies that might have been addressed if your reporter had called me prior to publication.

Since leaving The Times last December I have not been hired by any companies to put them in contact with reporters from The Times or to lobby before any regulator, legislative or other government agencies. I would appreciate a prompt correction.

Thank you.
--Stephen Labaton

The Prowler replies:
I stand by the item, which nowhere says Mr. Labaton had been hired to put companies "in contact with reporters from The Times" or to serve as a lobbyist.

KNOWING LESS
Re: Robert VerBruggen's Diagnosing Racism:

Here is another question: Do the data show anything about the Tea Parties? We have a right to a good answer, because this research must be supported by public dollars both directly and indirectly. And even if the demographers were hobbyists who collected the data in their spare time, since they claim that their work is science, they should be expected to back up that serious claim. For their information, science is not data. Science is knowledge, or its functional equivalent. What knowledge does the Institute's research produce?

Polling about attitudes is almost certain to be misleading, especially in the case of Tea Party participants. The one obvious thing about a Tea Party is that the people are there to express themselves: almost everyone is carrying a sign or wearing some garment or accessory with a message. A descriptive account of a Tea Party should say, "People came with such-and-such signs". The polling work of this Institute obscures the most salient sociological fact: the Tea Parties are assemblies of citizens. Instead it elicits factoids about ethnicity and attitudes. Even assuming that these attitudes could be accurately determined, they are of no demonstrable consequence -- in contrast to the public statements that the Tea Partiers themselves choose to make.

Ultimately this University of Washington Institute, like other institutes conducting demographic research, justifies its work as useful to society. In this case, it was only useful to journalists seeking pseudo-scientific support for fake news. These researchers who are paid for being scientists have a responsibility to their employers, funders, and "Society" to prove that they actually know more about society than an alert participant does. I don't think they can. Thanks to them, we know less. That's a bad job evaluation.
-- Bruce Heiden
Professor of Greek and Latin
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio

WHERE'S THE PICTURE?
Re: Jeffrey Lord's Jon Stewart Flunks His Spartacus Test:

What a bizarre piece. Did your author watch the actual Daily Show segment that skewered the Muslims? I note, by the way, that the piece does not include a picture of Mohammed, with or without bear suit. Unlike the Daily Show. I guess you guys ain't Spartacus, either.

Shame on you for the most disingenuous piece I've read on this issue so far.
-- Silke-Maria

How come no picture/drawing etc..of Mohammed along with the article?
-- Climb

As the writer notes in the beginning, everyone has his "Spartacus moment" -- maybe for reasons unknown to us, this wasn't meant to be Stewart's moment. Maybe we should all stop criticizing each other. When you feel like pounding someone into the ground, stop and ask if it's really necessary -- how would that be for a "Spartacus moment"?
-- Kristin Pastore
Somerset, New Jersey

Bravo, bravo, bravo!!