Cerin wrote:I'm not quite sure I understand your perspective. If the first writer is accurate, and there were several right-wing influences in the hodge-podge mix of Loughner's, I'll say mind-set, isn't it important to report that, if we're interested in the truth? Are you suggesting that truth should be avoided for the sake of an idea of neutrality that you believe should be elevated for the sake of not irritating people? What if the first framing is more accurate than the one simply summarizing no obvious ideology? Perhaps there is no obvious coherent ideology, but the mix is clearly influenced by several right wing offshoots (as I think fits with what axordil was saying)? Should the more accurate representation be forfeited for a falsely neutral one because we judge the more falsely neutral picture to be less potentially 'cutting' to one side? Do you think you might have automatically accepted the second framing as more accurate because you find it more desirable? I notice that you seem to have assumed a hidden agenda on the part of the first writer (forgive me if I'm mistaken there; you said 'it's a subtle way to plant', which indicates intent to deceive or influence, to me. *You also seem to have assumed that the use of the phrase must be a deliberate technique chosen to influence, rather than simply being the writer's sincere choice to most concisely and accurate convey his meaning.) Do you think if it's true that Loughner was influenced by various extremist right-wing groups, it should not be said? If you think it should not be said, is that because you think the value of the truth is outweighed by some other interest? If so, what would that interest be?
Please pardon me if I seem to have made leaps of thought that 'cut' in any way. My questions are sincere.
* edit to add asterisked sentence
Cerin - speaking as someone who is interested in the truth, I think it seems odd at best to underscore specifically the extreme right-wing influences on someone who listed the Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite works; subscribed to 9/11 conspiracy theories that have attracted some on the far left; was strongly opposed to our last conservative President; and who is described as being profoundly mentally ill (probably the dominant factor in his behavior). What I'm trying to say is that the first framing is not more accurate.
It has nothing to do with an interest in neutrality, false or otherwise. If I felt that it was intellectually honest to blame Loughner's behavior unilaterally on the right-wing's views, I would do so. As we have posted together for years now, you must surely know that I don't refrain from expressing difficult opinions because they might irritate people, nor do I avoid views that right-wingers might find "cutting." I am generally partisan, I wish to see this country move in a socially liberal direction, and I will not hesitate to blame my ideological opponents for harms that I can honestly say they caused or catalyzed.
However, for me, intellectual honesty demands recognition of the fact that this person was clearly disturbed. To the extent he was influenced by external writings and voices, those came from the left, the right, and non-partisan sources. The article's underscoring of only the "extreme right-wing" influences (as such) thus struck me as unhelpful.