Opinion bias, with a blending of selective facts to feed the cognitively biased. Anyone with a modicum of critical thinking skills and familiarity with geopolitical analysis can readily see the manipulation and distortion intended to mislead the less informed. Unfortunately one must now also question the author’s intent as being deliberate malinformation. The previous post had the same hallmarks. Additionally no actual inconvenient facts of which there are many have been included to spoil the narrative.
Hello Donovan; Thanks for reading and I can hear your concerns. This is a Marvin Kalb book from 2015. He's a former journalist and Harvard professor, who wrote commentaries for Edward R. Murrow before becoming CBS News' Moscow bureau chief in the late 1950's, and who also served as a translator and junior press officer at the US Embassy in Moscow. (I notice his slant. His experience was more with the Soviets.)
That's why I post a variety of viewpoints. Each has some value, and I trust you to see where they lean more to one side. I don't give any of these posts a total vote of confidence.
Reading a lot, and posting some, I am convinced that there are no 'balanced" histories. Everything is a narrative of sorts, to convince the reader. The most biased reports use a lot of extra adjectives, sprinkled freely on one side of the reporting. Those I don't even read. This post has 40 some paragraphs. I see most of them as informative. We aren't told any of this stuff.
It would be good if you would point to the offending statements that stimulated you to say this. Then we could talk about what is closer to the truth. What's the use of bashing the whole piece? It becomes a meaningless statement of discontent.
Opinion bias, with a blending of selective facts to feed the cognitively biased. Anyone with a modicum of critical thinking skills and familiarity with geopolitical analysis can readily see the manipulation and distortion intended to mislead the less informed. Unfortunately one must now also question the author’s intent as being deliberate malinformation. The previous post had the same hallmarks. Additionally no actual inconvenient facts of which there are many have been included to spoil the narrative.
Hello Donovan; Thanks for reading and I can hear your concerns. This is a Marvin Kalb book from 2015. He's a former journalist and Harvard professor, who wrote commentaries for Edward R. Murrow before becoming CBS News' Moscow bureau chief in the late 1950's, and who also served as a translator and junior press officer at the US Embassy in Moscow. (I notice his slant. His experience was more with the Soviets.)
That's why I post a variety of viewpoints. Each has some value, and I trust you to see where they lean more to one side. I don't give any of these posts a total vote of confidence.
Reading a lot, and posting some, I am convinced that there are no 'balanced" histories. Everything is a narrative of sorts, to convince the reader. The most biased reports use a lot of extra adjectives, sprinkled freely on one side of the reporting. Those I don't even read. This post has 40 some paragraphs. I see most of them as informative. We aren't told any of this stuff.
It would be good if you would point to the offending statements that stimulated you to say this. Then we could talk about what is closer to the truth. What's the use of bashing the whole piece? It becomes a meaningless statement of discontent.
.