Blogging Issues (Post 1)

Late last week I promised a post over the weekend in which I’d talk about issues which influence my blogging.

As examples of what I’d talk about, I said I’d reference two recent posts: one concerning Bill Anderson’s review of Until Proven Innocent and another titled, Jackson or Sharpton, who's dumber?

I didn’t publish the “blogging issues” post last weekend because I got “pulled off assignment.”

I needed to “cover” Duke President Brodhead’s statement Saturday afternoon in which for the first time in eighteen months, he said he was “sorry” he hadn’t been more supportive of the Duke students on the Men’s lacrosse team and their parents.

That story took most of my blog time this past weekend.

Now to the promised “blogging issues” post:

My post of Bill Anderson’s UPI review drew a sharp comment from Insufficiently Sensitive who said I hadn’t noted the most important comments in Bill’s review.

IS said [excerpt]: “Bill's disagreements with (Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson) contain the most important statement of the review - that is, the irresolvable enmity between PC and classic liberalism.”

When I read IS’s criticism, I knew IS was right.

I’d worked to reference in my post just what IS was saying.

But I couldn’t do it well, or at least not to my satisfaction.

Explaining to readers how classical liberalism differed from the liberalism of say, Durham’s People’s Alliance or that of the journalists at the Raleigh N&O who helped frame the Duke students, would make the post excessively long.

After all, don't N&O reporters and editors, for instance, claim they embrace the same principles as classical liberals?

So I went with a review that was fact-based, linked readers to Bill’s review, and suggested they read it.

I’ve no apology for doing that.

And that’s my answer to IS, a commenter for whom I have respect, and to all of you who come to JinC with serious and good purposes.

Can some JinC posts be improved? Of course.

All I claim for them is that when I put them up, I believe they’re honest, reasonable and fact-based; and when one of you shows me where one is not, I correct.

That said, comments such as IS’s are welcome for adding to a post and making this blog better.

Thanks, IS, and thanks to every other commenter/editor who helps out at JinC.

Now, about Jackson or Sharpton, who’s dumber?

Can we all agree since it’s after 11 p.m. where I am and Jackson’s and Sharpton’s dumbness aren't going away anytime soon, that you permit me to go to bed now?

We can resume “blogging issues” tomorrow with Post 2 in which I promise to discuss Jackson and Sharpton's dumbness and how the Internet is tripping up the Revs and their MSM flacks.

Thanks, I thought you'd say, “Yes.”

Until tomorrow, every good wish.

John