Emily Wilder: Distraction

On May 19 a young news associate working for the Associated Press in Arizona was fired because it said she had authored “some tweets” that “violated AP’s News Values and Principles.” Nobody has pointed to misconduct in her work for the AP itself. What seems to have happened here is that a campaign by the Stanford College Republicans singling Emily Wilder out as an “anti-Israeli agitator” by way of questioning the AP’s objectivity on the issue started to catch fire, and the AP sought to douse that fire quickly.

My understanding is that (1) Wilder had worked at AP for only 17 days when she was fired, (2) she had not written the contested tweets during that 17 day period, and (3) she had created them while an undergraduate at Stanford College, when she was with the campus newspaper.

On May 15, an Israeli airstrike destroyed the building in Gaza used by the AP in the coverage of that conflict. This was part of a broader exchange of fire between the Palestinian group Hamas and Israel, and it was seen by some as part of an Israeli effort to render its military activities in Gaza opaque to the outside world. The Stanford College Republicans focused their own (metaphorical) fire on a recent Stanford alum, her Palestinian sympathies, and accordingly on the AP’s objectivity as a way of distracting attention from the coverage of that airstrike more than seven thousand miles away.

The distraction worked: the AP brass helped it work. Said brass should be ashamed of themselves.

Comments

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog