The Spectacle Blog
The Times gets into the messy issue of what the heck they were thinking. You can go to the reader thread that I pointed out the other day where they have an "All Hands On Deck" approach to taking questions, and to their credit, they respond to the arguments.
But the transparency they're providing on this story isn't
actually present. You'll note that Keller responds primarily in
generalities. Perhaps that's necessary -- if you tell how
frequently the reporters needed to fly out to interview sources,
someone might figure out who they were talking to.
Most shocking to me was this line:
"And I expect you have not heard the last of us on this
subject. Now I'd like to go tuck in my children."
Isn't that sort of... well, arrogant? What's the point of this
statement? To let us know that we're distracting him from his
fatherly duties? Have we, the readers, gotten in the way of family?
Is he letting us know he finds all of us annoying?
Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
Related Blog Posts
More Blog Posts by J.P. Freire
http://spectator.org/blog/2008/02/23/the-times-responds
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Last in Line
- Laughing on the Wrong Side
- …And a Young Child Will Lead
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
