« Reactionary postmodernism | Main | Framing worker democracy »

September 28, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451cbef69e2017c3232071f970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Getting high on your supply:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

BenSix

Hah! I think a lot of dealers live by the rule, "Don't be down when it's around."

One of the problems is that there's far more commercial appeal in claims that something has or will happen than claims that something may have happened or might transpire. That doesn't explain the obvious bias towards certain fact claims, though. An American media outlet could have profited hugely from the claim that Saddam didn't have WMDs but all the major ones decided to spurn the chance for that payday.

Luke

I'm not a journalist, but shouldn't Mckenzie have been suspicious of what he was told? Is there something in the normal journalism course that says "believe what the police tell you"?

Mark Wadsworth

Thanks for linking to my post about Clegg.

chris

@ Luke - well, I think he should have been suspicious. His defence is that the police had told the truth many times before, so he believed them that time. Which suggests he hadn't read Betrand Russell's Problems of Philosophy (the bit on induction). This is the sort of mess you get into when you allow people who didn't do PPE to run things.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad