IN THE NEWS
Once you've read this critique of Victor Davis Hanson's critique of anonymous sources critiquing the Bush Administration in State of Denial, I strongly recommend you read the comments section. The critiques of the critique of the critique of the critiques are (once you've caught your breath from saying that) extremely important. How should journalists handle anonymous sources? How do we, or generations to come (including historians like Hanson) verify that someone actually said what Woodward is quoting them as saying, or if what's being quoted is accurate?
An aside: Robert Farley keeps making me wonder about my recent purchase of Hanson's latest book. Assuming Farley is right, is Hanson a person with poor critical faculties, which would call into question his talents as an historian? Or is he applying his persnickety historian's habits where they don't belong?
Your link to the critique does not work.
Posted by: Name | 10/10/2006 at 13:12
The former. He never applies those "persnickety historian's habits" to his own writing on current events or to those with whom he agrees. It's not persnickety, it's dishonesty.
Posted by: Mojo | 10/10/2006 at 19:01
Your link to the critique is broken. It sounds interesting, but you don't cite the source site, so I can't even try to go there and find it.
Posted by: dru | 11/02/2006 at 13:41