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"
-
-
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 -
Replying to @HeerJeet
7.
@Sulliview's critique of Kinsley makes sense in terms of review's logical flaws but not sure it is public editors job to critique style3 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
8. NY Book Review commissioned Kinsley to do review because "he has decades of experience in news journalism". Maybe that was real problem.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @HeerJeet
9. Does Kinsley really have experience in "news journalism" of a sort that made him apt reviewer of Greenwald book?
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
10. Kinsley has great experience as being pundit, editor of opinion journal, and general interest online magazine, but "news journalism"?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
11. As far as I know, Kinsley hasn't done the kind of hard news investigative reporting that might have helped illuminate Greenwald debate
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.