Interesting information here. It seems the Washington <strike>Post</strike> Times article that IR quoted about liberal's cheering on the enemy employed some pretty selective quoting from Mr Kamiya's editorial. Here is Salon's response:

Kamiya vs O'Reilly

excerpt-
The article also includes a link to the original piece (which the Washington Post article conveniently left out) so you can judge the entirety of the argument he was making.

[ 04-24-2003, 12:52 AM: Message edited by: Rokenn ]

<font color=deepskyblue>An interesting response by <font color=cyan>Salon</font>, <font color=coral>Rokenn</font>. I will agree that arguments should be considered in their entirety and BOTH sides should have equal representation.

Yet you created another thread centered around an article that ignored this basic tenent of "Fair Play". I refer - of course - to the Nursing mother == terrorist?. In that article, the freelance authoress admits the details of the story "strain credulity" but then adds they are so outrageous that they couldn't possilby have been made up.

She also admits that the crew of the plane and the "American male" in question gave vastly different accounts of the incident...yet no details are given from their versions.

The article is clearly slanted and one-sided - far more than the article quoted by <font color=white>Iron Ranger</font> from the <font color=cyan>Washington Post</font> (which is traditionally a left-wing publication}. </font>

I'm not sure what all this has to do with the misrepresentation of Mr Kaiya's op-ed piece. Also IR's article was from the Washington Times not the Post.

The thread you are calling me to task on was posted more tongue-in-cheek then anything else. If you want to discuss terrorist nursing mothers some more I will be happy to in the other thread. This thread is about the outrages distortion that the right layed on the Mr Kamiya. Did you actually bother to read the original piece he wrote? They (the right-wing attack dogs) took a couple of lines and quoted them out of context to defame him and Salon, surely you do not agree with that kind of behaviour?

edit: opps my bad, I just noticed I did the same thing you did and got the newspaper of IR's article wrong in my original post [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 04-24-2003, 12:52 AM: Message edited by: Rokenn ]

Sorry Cerek, but dragging other articles in here is actually a non-argument to make a case... Saying how others have posted misleading articles themselves before doesn't make it any less wrong that this particular article was written in such a misleading way in the first place; and trying to point out the hypocrisy in Rokenn's actions still doesn't disprove the fact that the Washington Times deliberately left out a few lines which made Kamiya look a lot worse than he really was, inspiring many of us to distance ourselves from his comments.
And if you *do* think the "hypocrisy" is relevant: there's a slight difference between the methods of posting used by Iron Ranger and Rokenn for the two mentioned articles. Rokenn seemed to post it in a light-hearted "teehee, silly!" kind of manner, more in a teasing way (and you and MagiK were about the only ones who decided to take it seriously - maybe too seriously, compared to the other replies ;) ); while Iron Ranger's topic was of a different nature from the beginning - the use of "disgusted", a "it-may-piss-them-off-but-I'm-not-saying-all-liberals-think-like-this!"-insinuating semi-accusation (as if we should somehow feel addressed to every time they're talking about nuttcases on "the left" :rolleyes: ) and the not so silly controversial nature of the article are responsible for a wholly different atmosphere.
That's not necessarily Iron Ranger's fault, as he merely posted an article he stumbled upon in the kind of newspaper he reads ( ;) ) and shared his feelings over what was written; but when it turns out that the article was deliberately misquoting, it makes it a lot more awkward than when someone suddenly comes up with an article in which the stewardess is giving "her side" of the story, mostly because the nature of the debates in Rokenn's topic was a lot less heated and controversial than was the case in Iron Ranger's topic.

[ 04-24-2003, 04:46 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

<font color=deepskyblue><font color=coral>Rokenn</font> - I did follow the links provided by you and <font color=white>Iron Ranger</font> both in order to read the two articles you each referenced in their entirety. I did not have time to follow the link provided by <font color=cyan>Salon</font> to the "full text version" of Mr. Kamiya's article. I may try to find time today, but it really isn't necessary.

I agree now (as I did in my original post here) that both sides of the argument should be presented. While I haven't read the original article by Kamiya yet, I will take you at your word that the "right wing attack dogs" took a portion of his article out of context and reacted to that. I agree with you and <font color=orange>Grojlach</font> both that it was wrong for them to do that. I do like to watch the O'Reilly Factor from time to time because he won't allow the guests on there to "spin" any BS rhetoric about their motives. But I also agree he can be very "heavy handed" at times too, and I don't like that. He should be able to "shoot down" his opponent's arguments without having to "shout down" his opponents themselves. I firmly believe in being courteous to the each side and allowing both sides equal opportunity to present their case. And - even though I'm a right-wing conservative myself - I can't listen to Rush Limbaugh for more than 30 seconds without getting a headache.

My first post was not meant to "derail" your thread or to discredit the point you were making about the <font color=cyan>Washington Times</font>. I agree wholeheartedly that it is irresponsible of them (and the other publications) to do that. As for O'Reilly and Limbaugh, I think most people expect that kind of behavior from them (especially Limbaugh) and I'll be the first to admit that O'Reilly does seem to be "very full of himself" most of the time.

I do feel it was relevant to mention the "Nursing mother" article from your other thread because it represented another example of "slanted/misleading journalism". You may have felt the article was mostly tongue-in-cheek...but many of those who read the article did not. You did "bother to check" to check the online responses generated by the article itself that I mentioned in my post to that thread, didn't you? ;) Whether tongue-in-cheek or not, that article generated a lot of unnecessary "anti-American" sentiment among the readers. A sentiment that will "color" thier views towards more important issues regarding America. So both articles represent an injustice to the opposing viewpoint.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>I respectfully disagree that "dragging other articles in here is actually a non-argument" because both articles represent a deliberate slanting of the facts in order to present a certain viewpoint and both articles were quoted by Ironworks members in order to generate discussion</font>

<font color=deepskyblue><font color=white>Iron Rangers</font> opening comments may have been more adversarial in nature, but I disagree that the "controversial nature of the article represents a wholly different atmosphere". Obviously it does for you, but it didn't for me because I didn't take <font color=white>Iron Rangers</font> article any more seriously than you took <font color=coral>Rokenns</font>. And there is another difference which you pointed out - but seemed to feel is irrelevant. <font color=white>Iron Ranger</font> did not know his article was a deliberate mis-representation, but <font color=coral>Rokenn</font> did.

I agree the "Nursing mother" article didn't create as much controversy on Ironworks as the selective-quotation of Kamiya's article did...but it certainly DID create and/or perpetuate anti-American sentiment among the readers of the article itself. And if you look over my posts, you will see that this was my main criticism of the article. Even if it was done in jest, the sentiment and reaction it created were real.</font>

Enough with the off-topic posts. If you want to dicuss my 'hypocrasy' in posting an article (nursing mother == terrorist?) that effectively pointed out it's mis-representation within itself please take it to PM's. If you want to discuss the information posted in this thread feel free.

PS if you carefully check my 'offending' thread you will notice a lightheart laughing smilely, denoting that I did not take the article that seriously, though it is an intesting study in perspective (ala Rashomon)

<font color=deepskyblue>I did discuss the information posted in this thread. My specific comments were.....</font>

<font color=plum> <font color=deepskyblue>I also explained why I felt the other article was relevant to this discussion. Using another thread to illustrate a point is not "off-topic" in my opinion. Of course, you're welcome to disagree with that reasoning.

As for your "hypocrisy", I did not say you were a hypocrit and I honostly did not mean to imply it either. In fact, I didn't even remember that YOU were the one who posted the "Nursing Mother" article until I went back to look at the thread. I was going to use that thread as an "offsetting illustration" in this thread anyway. I admit that I did find it ironic that you were the one who posted the article, and I meant to post a smiley in my original post to show that I found that coincidence more humorous than hypocritical.

But I didn't include the smiley and I realize that changes the "tone" of my opening post...so I apologize for that omission and the resulting implication.</font>


<font color=deepskyblue>I did see the smiley in your other thread, so I realized you felt it was a fair joke. But I also pointed out that my primary complaint with the article was the real "anti-American" sentiment this "journalistic joke" generated.

I think your example of the film <font color=white>Rashomon</font> is very relevant. I admit I was upset with the larger issues and sentiment raised by an article that seemed to be written "tongue-in-cheek". By the same token, you and <font color=orange>Grojlach</font> were very upset by an article that I didn't take very seriously - because the "slanted view" was obvious in it as well (even though I didn't realize how badly out of context Kamiya's comments had been taken).

As you say, it's all a matter of perspective.</font>