Tuesday, October 17, 2006
As stated in earlier posts, Dr. Baxter showed his �hidden agenda� in many ways. First, he, a professor of creative writing, is asked to write a political opinion piece for the NYT. This collaboration between academia and the MSM left occurs fairly regularly. It also occurs without the author stating his bias.
Next, Dr. Baxter exploited the Orwellian tactic of redefining words.
Thirdly, he played his most blatant card by omitting key facts about Michele Bachmann�s background and showed his disdain for anyone with a Christian belief. He conveniently omitted Ms. Bachmann�s post doctorate degree in taxation from William and Mary � a major achievement in anyone�s education. Then he made sure everyone knew her support was from evangelical fundamentalists.
What can one conclude from this rather poorly written, change-of-topic-assigned article is that one must read main stream media articles with some skepticism. One needs to ask oneself the following questions on a regular basis:
- Is there a bias, a �hidden agenda� of the author and what is it?
- How is the author twisting the meaning of words?
- Where is the source of the information?
- What possible facts have been omitted that would make a critical impact on one�s assessment of the tone, substance and accuracy of the article?