Posted by The Editors
on November 1, 2009, 4:48 pm, in reply to "Re: sorry, one more on David"
: And btw., even if the above assertion were
: true, it would not excuse your accusation
: that I was "pretending" to have
: written the article in the way I did for the
: reasons that I gave. Nor would it excuse
: your saying that it was your "job"
: to "expose" this alleged pretence
: on my part. And nor would it excuse the
: insinuation that I had written the article
: for status and other "rewards".
: All ugly remarks made, it must be said,
: without one solitary shred of evidence.
Time to finally draw a line under this, we think. To take the last point, we wrote:
"There is a choice to be made - +not+ mentioning the media at all greatly increases your chances of being embraced as a ‘respectable’ commentator, with all the rewards that can go with that. Mentioning the media will be a taint on your reputation, will reduce your media career prospects. That’s the choice we all face."
We were describing the media 'rules of the game,' the pressures to conform that we all face. That's not insinuating that you personally wrote that particular article for status and rewards. By the way, we began that post by commenting on your motivation for writing the article "to start an open discussion": "That's admirable; it's good to see you at least get the issue raised in a mass media forum."
Eds
Responses: