1. @Sulliview critique of Kinsley's Greenwald review raises interesting question:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/publiceditor/2014/05/27/kinsley-greenwald-and-government-secrets/?_php=true,true&_type=blogs,blogs&smid=tw-share&_r=1 …
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet
2. "editing ought to point out gaping holes in an argument, remove ad hominem language & question unfair characterizations" Is that true?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
3. A book review is a hybrid genre, mixing both reportage and opinion. Reviewers are chosen (ideally) for expertise.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
4. I thought Kinsley's review was shoddy & unconvincing but if you hire MK to review a book you can't start taking out his "sneering"
4 replies 2 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HeerJeet
5. Readers of a review can be expected to spot ad hominem attacks & illogical arguments, no?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HeerJeet
6. Kinsley's review was fairly self-refuting on its own terms, so not sure needed public editor intervention
4 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
@jaytingle I take the point about editorial intervention but readers filter writing all time by assessing arguments.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.