The Dream Palace of Educational Theorists

John Derbyshire brings us this essay in which he looks at the utter intellectual bankruptcy of the leftist educational elites and their pet theories of human nature. Unfortunately for all of us, these theories have nothing to do with the ways in real people actually grow, develop and mature. And certainly they have little to do with the ways in which we eventually learn what we need to know in adult life. It is a sad fact that today's educational institutions are mostly about propagandizing the young as often and as completely as possible in the latest politically correct intellectual fashions. And because this is their primary goal, any real education which a young person may be able to attain is almost certain to be in spite of, rather than because of, this system. And those who are fortunate enough to learn to think for themselves, rather than merely parroting back the party line, can be sure that they will be the objects ridicule and intellectual persecution. Is it any wonder so many of our young people "graduate" from these confidence games without being able to read their diplomas?

If you read much Ed Biz theorizing, you find yourself wondering how a single field of human enquiry can contain so much error and folly. One answer is that educationalists wilfully-ideologically, in fact-ignore the understanding of human nature that the modern human sciences are gradually attaining, and cling doggedly to long-exploded theories about how human beings develop from infancy to adulthood. From false premises they proceed to false conclusions.

The long and short of this new understanding is that human beings are much less malleable than everyone supposed half a century ago, and much less malleable than "blank slate" leftists-a category that includes practically all education theorists-have ever, for reasons not difficult to fathom, been willing to contemplate.

Reading recent results out of the human sciences always brings to my mind those "shape memory alloys" that so fascinate materials scientists. These are metal alloys that "remember" their original geometry, and can be made to return to it, or something close to it, usually by heating, after any amount of deformation and pressure. So it is with humanity. We come into the world with a good deal of our life course pre-ordained in our genes. At age three or so we begin to interact with other children outside our home, with results that depend in part on us, and in part on where our home is situated. We pass through various educational processes-formalized extensions of that out-of-home environment, and also highly location-dependent. We end up as adults with personalities and prospects that are, according to the latest understandings, around 50 percent innate and pre-ordained, around 50 percent formed by "non-shared environment" (not shared, that is, with siblings raised in the same home by the same parents-a somewhat controversial concept in its precise contents, but clearly consisting mostly of those out-of-home experiences), and 0-5 percent formed by "shared environment"-mainly parenting style.

The Dream Palace of Educational Theorists

John Derbyshire brings us this essay in which he looks at the utter intellectual bankruptcy of the leftist educational elites and their pet theories of human nature. Unfortunately for all of us, these theories have nothing to do with the ways in real people actually grow, develop and mature. And certainly they have little to do with the ways in which we eventually learn what we need to know in adult life. It is a sad fact that today's educational institutions are mostly about propagandizing the young as often and as completely as possible in the latest politically correct intellectual fashions. And because this is their primary goal, any real education which a young person may be able to attain is almost certain to be in spite of, rather than because of, this system. And those who are fortunate enough to learn to think for themselves, rather than merely parroting back the party line, can be sure that they will be the objects ridicule and intellectual persecution. Is it any wonder so many of our young people "graduate" from these confidence games without being able to read their diplomas?

If you read much Ed Biz theorizing, you find yourself wondering how a single field of human enquiry can contain so much error and folly. One answer is that educationalists wilfully-ideologically, in fact-ignore the understanding of human nature that the modern human sciences are gradually attaining, and cling doggedly to long-exploded theories about how human beings develop from infancy to adulthood. From false premises they proceed to false conclusions.

The long and short of this new understanding is that human beings are much less malleable than everyone supposed half a century ago, and much less malleable than "blank slate" leftists-a category that includes practically all education theorists-have ever, for reasons not difficult to fathom, been willing to contemplate.

Reading recent results out of the human sciences always brings to my mind those "shape memory alloys" that so fascinate materials scientists. These are metal alloys that "remember" their original geometry, and can be made to return to it, or something close to it, usually by heating, after any amount of deformation and pressure. So it is with humanity. We come into the world with a good deal of our life course pre-ordained in our genes. At age three or so we begin to interact with other children outside our home, with results that depend in part on us, and in part on where our home is situated. We pass through various educational processes-formalized extensions of that out-of-home environment, and also highly location-dependent. We end up as adults with personalities and prospects that are, according to the latest understandings, around 50 percent innate and pre-ordained, around 50 percent formed by "non-shared environment" (not shared, that is, with siblings raised in the same home by the same parents-a somewhat controversial concept in its precise contents, but clearly consisting mostly of those out-of-home experiences), and 0-5 percent formed by "shared environment"-mainly parenting style.

The Blogosphere at War

Here is a very interesting post by Belmont Club on the subject of how the Blogsphere fits in as part of the war against the Islamofascists. For if there is a truism which has come about in the last few years, it is that this is as much about information warfare as it is about soldiers on the battlefield. America's enemies have been very cognizant of the fact that they can use our own dinosaur media against us. In the past, when even on the battlefield we had achieved our objectives, the American left and the establishment media conspired to defeat our cause, as was the case in Vietnam. At that time, of course, there was no alternative media to which regular Americans could turn to hear a message other than retreat and defeat. And because America is the living refutation of the Angry Leftist fantasy, one can always count on them and their press lapdogs to come down on the side of America's enemies. America's defeat is their ultimate ambition.

But today the playing field is different. Because while the old media is still working to defeat America with all the tools at its disposal, regular citizens now have the option of turning to the new media as an alternative to the stale and increasingly unreliable propaganda organs which have dominated the public arena of ideas for so long. And while the Internet is still relatively new in this respect, there can be little doubt about the falling circulation numbers for old media newspapers and the collapse of ratings at the major networks that continues unabated. Americans are voting with their feet for the news and information that they prefer. More and more it is the alternative media on which they rely. Belmont Club looks at the future prospects for this sea change and how it will affect the war against radical Islam.

The Blog Mob

Written by fools to be read by imbeciles

In this pithy essay, Elite Media Monoculture "journalist" Mr. Joseph Rago writes in The Wall Street Journal on how, in his royal opinion, bloggers are but a barnacle on the underside of modern media. How useful such an opinion may be to those in the "profession" of journalism may be judged by the continuing fact of collapsing readership and falling revenues at virtually every newspaper in the country while alternative media, including blogs and the Internet, flourish with abandon.

Naturally this state of affair produces an inconsolable Mr. Rago who, being a modern friar of the profession, sees no reason whatsoever that he should not be allowed to continue his sacred work, locked in his ivory tower with his parchments and quill pens endlessly improving the gilded pages of illustrated poetic prose over which editors by the hundreds have toiled and sacrificed for endless nights without so much as a Starbuck's Latte to relieve their unremitting torment.

Of course the real problem here for the supremely superior Mr. Rago is his failure to understand the nature of the Internet or the blogs which he so airily dismisses. Are there some blogs written badly? Sure there are. Do they vary widely in quality as well as subject? Of course they do. But their power is not to be found in how they may appear individually, but rather how they function collectively as a method of sifting through mountains of information to find patterns and facts which are overlooked or, more often, ignored by the dinosaur media.

This form of "open source" distributed information is very powerful indeed and it is the means by which bloggers over the past several years have found a virtually unending stream of media scandals from Dan Rather's memogate, to the lies of Eason Jordan, to doctored photos from Reuters. On and on we find that the Elite Media Monoculture abounds with distortion, bias and shoddy assumptions presented as "facts" which would all go unremarked were it not for the self-appointed guardians in the blogsphere who have made it their business to keep the elites on their toes, even if they can't be kept completely honest.

Without the bloggers, who are after all just regular Americans making their voices heard, so called "journalists" would have a free hand to do whatever they wish with no accountability at all. And as we all know, "journalists" all across the land are always in favor of accountability.

Just as long as it doesn't apply to them of course.

The Liberal Mind

The Psychological causes of political madness

Psychiatrist Lyle H. Rossiter has written a book on the subject of why liberalism should be regarded as a metal disorder. And while he is not the first person to write on the subject, this short excerpt is well worth reading as it encapsulates much of the problem that we see with those on the left side of today's political spectrum. Indeed, the behavior that we have come to expect from the Angry Left would be difficult to characterize as anything but abnormal. Certainly no one could say that the left is motivated by calm and dispassionate reason and logic. Rather it is a mass of seething envy, resentment and anger that is as hostile to modern civilization as it is irrational and epistemologically unfocused.

Like all other human beings, the modern liberal reveals his true character, including his madness, in what he values and devalues, in what he articulates with passion. Of special interest, however, are the many values about which the modern liberal mind is not passionate: his agenda does not insist that the individual is the ultimate economic, social and political unit; it does not idealize individual liberty and the structure of law and order essential to it; it does not defend the basic rights of property and contract; it does not aspire to ideals of authentic autonomy and mutuality; it does not preach an ethic of self-reliance and self-determination; it does not praise courage, forbearance or resilience; it does not celebrate the ethics of consent or the blessings of voluntary cooperation. It does not advocate moral rectitude or understand the critical role of morality in human relating. The liberal agenda does not comprehend an identity of competence, appreciate its importance, or analyze the developmental conditions and social institutions that promote its achievement. The liberal agenda does not understand or recognize personal sovereignty or impose strict limits on coercion by the state. It does not celebrate the genuine altruism of private charity. It does not learn history’s lessons on the evils of collectivism.

What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice. Those who occupy this world are “workers,” “minorities,” “the little guy,” “women,” and the “unemployed.” They are poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited and victimized. They bear no responsibility for their problems. None of their agonies are attributable to faults or failings of their own: not to poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration tolerance, mental illness or defects in character. None of the victims’ plight is caused by failure to plan for the future or learn from experience. Instead, the “root causes” of all this pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization and imperialism. In the radical liberal mind, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: “Big Business,” “Big Corporations,” “greedy capitalists,” U.S. Imperialists,” “the oppressors,” “the rich,” “the wealthy,” “the powerful” and “the selfish.”

The liberal cure for this endless malaise is a very large authoritarian government that regulates and manages society through a cradle to grave agenda of redistributive caretaking. It is a government everywhere doing everything for everyone. The liberal motto is “In Government We Trust.” To rescue the people from their troubled lives, the agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. With liberal intellectuals sharing the glory, the liberal politician is the hero in this melodrama. He takes credit for providing his constituents with whatever they want or need even though he has not produced by his own effort any of the goods, services or status transferred to them but has instead taken them from others by force.

Reason vs. Islam

In this short essay from Jonathan David Carson, we take a look at the historical differences between the metaphysical views of Islam and those of the West. Metaphysics, for the Greek philosophers, was the science of first principles; the basic facts about the universe which give rise to all of the others. It should be clear by now that the different metaphysical views of Islam and the West are at odds, and that mainstream Islam as it is currently understood by most Muslims themselves, is incompatible with the basic philosophic foundation of the modern Western world. And it is because of these fundamentally different world views, which are at the root of these two systems, that we are seeing the conflicts which rage across the globe today.

Every system of thought is based on certain axioms; certain basic fundamental ideas on which the whole is built. In the West we have developed, over thousands of years, a system based on reason, logic and science. The ancient philosophers, such as Aristotle, showed that the world in which we live is governed by laws of nature that are regular and predictable. From this original observation we have gone on to discover the laws of physics, chemistry, electromagnetism and a host of others that describe the way the world around us works. Thus the basis of our society and culture in the West is the recognition that the universe is intelligible and knowable. Reason and logic allow us to see the underlying causes and effects at work in the world around us. And this knowledge gives us the standard of living and the constant progress which we enjoy in the West as we use natural laws to improve our lives with ever better technology, as well as a constant evolution in the methods of creating wealth and comfort for those of us who live in the civilized part of the world.

Islam, however, rejects this view of the world. For the devout Muslim the pursuit of science and reason are considered "un-Islamic." The view that any cause and effect could be independent of "the will of Allah" is considered apostasy. The Muslim believes that everything which happens is the direct will of Allah, and any attempt to understand the regularity and predictability of the universe denies the will of Allah to do as he pleases. The logical consequence of this was, for the whole of Islamic culture, the rejection of science and reason. And because of that rejection, mainstream Islam has been in decline for centuries and has remained at the level of primitive tribalism even today. And while Muslim societies may use technology, it remains true that the Islamic world is parasitic on the West; using its products but contributing nothing to the advance of knowledge and growth that is characteristic of the civilized world.

In the end Islam must seek to destroy the civilized world or it will pass into the dustbin of history along with every other anti-intellectual creed and system of thought that has gone before. Modern civilization is built on a foundation of freedom of thought informed by the understanding of a rational and intelligible universe. The proof is all around us. Fanatics, unfortunately, have a habit of ignoring the facts and tend to cling to their beliefs no matter how irrational they may be.

The Media Has Blood on its Hands

James P. Whetzel explains how the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth in the Dinosaur Media has condemned the people of Darfur to their fate. American military and political leaders will do nothing about Dafur. And why should they, when they will get no thanks from an Elite Media Monoculture that thinks Bush is Hitler and all members of the military are dumb knuckle dragging hicks from the boondocks who swill moonshine and eat possum out by the "cee-ment pond."

New York Times Cut to Sell at Citigroup

Marketwatch brings us this short bit of news in which we learn, yet again, that slanted liberal propaganda presented as news does not sell. And Citigroup is recommending that if you own shares in The New York Times, now is the time to get rid of them before they fall any further.

LONDON (MarketWatch) -- Citigroup downgraded New York Times Co. to sell from hold, citing high valuation, a low probability of a takeover and the continuing trend of readers migrating from print media to online. "Even though two secular forces should be helping the industry -- older demographics and slowing broadband adoption -- the actual circulation trends are getting worse," Citigroup said. "The only conclusion we can draw from this data is that the pace of Internet substitution is accelerating so fast, it's overwhelming two positive underlying trends."

The Road Not Taken

Forfeiting a Majority

Because this is one of the busiest times of the year for those who work in my field, blogging has been light for a while. But even though we have to put in long hours, we still have some time to get to an important essay from Hugh Hewitt. On Townhall.com Mr. Hewitt takes a look at how Republicans squandered their majority in the most feckless of ways and allowed the Democrats to win an election that they should have lost. While The Angry Left always blames others for their election losses, we must look to ourselves and ask what we did, and what we should have done, to avoid this outcome. This is an opportunity to learn from our mistakes and do better the next time around.

While The Elite Media Monoculture is trying to paint this election as a rejection of Republican values, the reality is that it has been the Republican leadership in this congress which has strayed from the principles and ideas which are at the base of conservatism. Smaller government, lower spending and an unapologetic defense of American values and ideas were missing in the last few years from our Republican leaders in the House and Senate. Instead we got out of control spending, failure to enforce the border, little movement on judges who deserve an up or down vote and the restriction of our rights by McCain-Feingold and the Kelo decision. It is no wonder that the Republican base was dissatisfied.

If there is a positive to this election, it is that perhaps it will cause members of the party, and particularly those at the top, to pay closer attention to the wishes of the base who want their representatives to not only speak the words of conservative philosophy, but to act on them as well.

In the Senate three turning points stand out.

On April 15, 2005 --less than three months after President Bush had begun a second term won in part because of his pledge to fight for sound judges-- Senator McCain appeared on Hardball and announced he would not support the "constitutional option" to end Democratic filibusters. Then, stunned by the furious reaction, the senator from Arizona cobbled together the Gang of 14 "compromise" that in fact destroyed the ability of the Republican Party to campaign on Democratic obstructionism while throwing many fine nominees under the bus. Now in the ruins of Tuesday there is an almost certain end to the slow but steady restoration of originalism to the bench. Had McCain not abandoned his party and then sabotaged its plans, there would have been an important debate and a crucial decision taken on how the Constitution operates. The result was the complete opposite. Yes, President Bush got his two nominees to SCOTUS through a 55-45 Senate, but the door is now closed, and the court still tilted left. A once-in-a-generation opportunity was lost.

A few months later there came a debate in the Senate over the Democrats' demand for a timetable for withdrawal for Iraq led to another half-measure: A Frist-Warner alternative that demanded quarterly reports on the war's progress, a move widely and correctly interpreted as a blow to the Administration’s Iraq policy. Fourteen Republicans voted against the Frist-Warner proposal --including Senator McCain-- and the press immediately understood that the half-measure was an early indicator of erosion in support for a policy of victory.

Then came the two leaks of national security secrets to the New York Times, and an utterly feckless response from both the Senate and the House. Not one hearing was held; not one subpoena delivered. A resolution condemning these deeply injurious actions passed the House but dared not name the New York Times. The Senate did not even vote on a non-binding resolution.

Nor did the Senate get around to confirming the president's authority to conduct warrantless surveillance of al Qaeda contacting its operatives in the United States. Weeks were taken up jamming the incoherent McCain-Kennedy immigration bill through the Judiciary Committee only to see it repudiated by the majority of Republicans, and the opportunity lost for a comprehensive bill that would have met the demand for security within a rational regularization of the illegal population already here.

The Shot Heard Round the World

Except in the MSM

By now you have almost certainly seen the photo below that ran today on the front page of The New York Post. The photo shows a number of soldiers posted in Iraq and who have a message for John Francois Kerry in response to his statement that American Soldiers in Iraq are just plain dumb and must have flunked out of school or something to end up where they are. Naturally the soldiers in Iraq have a few things to say about this.

In yesterday's post we mentioned that the New York Post is one of the few newspapers that has not only been able to avoid massive losses in circulation; it has actually picked up readers. The fact that they put this photo on their front page is part of the explanation for that fact. Meanwhile The Washington Post, which saw a decline of 3.6%, decided instead to run old stories about Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff.

It should be clear that the purpose of The Elite Media Monoculture here is not to report the news. If that were the case they would be running the photo above and asking veterans what they thought of Senator Kerry's remarks. No, the purpose here is to advance the leftist agenda. The decline in circulation which they are seeing across the board throughout dinosaur media is proof that the old tricks are not working any longer. The photo above has flown around the Internet at the speed of light. Everyone has seen it.

Just not on the front pages of Old Media.

Dinosaur Media Continues to Shrink

In this story from Editor and Publisher we look at some of the circulation figures from the most important newspapers around the country. And it's pretty bad for most of them. Circulation is down for nearly every paper on the list, although the New York Post actually picked up readers. Of course the Post is not so virulently anti-conservative and anti-Bush as most of these other newspapers, so moderate readers are less likely to be offended by rampant liberal editorializing.

And this is really the issue. Most people are not really opposed to print as much as they are distrustful of the bias that one regularly finds in The Elite Media Monoculture. New media has found a place because it brings the public a point of view and a depth of analysis which is simply absent in the Old Media. In addition, New Media is clear about the issue of point of view. If you are reading this, you know that this is a conservative site and you can evaluate what you read here within that context and adjust for it in your evaluation of what you read. But the members of the Old Media club don't seem particularly interested in examining their own bias and how it affects their coverage of news in their organizations and, just as importantly, of what they don't cover and why they think you don't need to know certain information.

Hugh Hewitt's extensive interview with Mark Halperin of ABC News is instructive in this regard. What is lacking in this three hour conversation is any recognition of the need for transparency in the Old Media. Mr. Halperin allows that there is indeed a very liberal bias at Old Media institutions. But he keeps insisting that what we need are 'objective' reporters and editors without any logical or rational way to determine just how one would be able to distinguish between those who are biased and those who are not. And this is the central problem for Old Media.

The people who make up that club are surrounded by others like themselves, with all their opinions and viewpoints more or less the same. Disagreement is something which they avoid like the plague and any conservatives would be quickly ejected from their personal circles as if they were a deadly virus. But Mr. Halperin insists that somehow 'objective' reporters can be found without investigating their basic political and philosophical assumptions which must inevitably inform their writing and reporting. Mr. Halperin cannot bring himself to acknowledge that bias is a function of one's basic world view, and that since everyone has a world view that bias in one way or another is built into every viewpoint. The need for transparency is vital if we are to be able to adjust for the opinions which we get from Old Media and evaluate them in a fair context. But this is just what Old Media refuses to do.

The Los Angeles Times reported that daily circulation fell 8% to 775,766. Sunday dropped 6% to 1,172,005.

The San Francisco Chronicle was down. Daily dropped 5.3% to 373,805 and Sunday fell 7.3% to 432,957.

The New York Times lost 3.5% daily to 1,086,798 and 3.5% on Sunday to 1,623,697. Its sister publication, The Boston Globe, reported decreases in daily circulation, down 6.7% to 386,415 and Sunday, down 9.9% to 587,292.

The Washington Post lost daily circulation, which was down 3.3% to 656,297 while Sunday declined 3.6% to 930,619.

Circulation losses at The Wall Street Journal were average, with daily down 1.9% to 2,043,235. The paper's Weekend Edition, however, saw its circulation fall 6.7% to 1,945,830.

Daily circulation at USA Today slipped 1.3% to 2,269,509.

The Chicago Tribune showed slight declines. Daily dropped 1.7% to 576,132 and Sunday decreased 1.3% to 937,907.

Losses at the Miami Herald were steep. Daily circulation fell 8.8% to 265,583 and Sunday fell 9.1% to 361,846.

While daily circulation stabilized compared to past reporting periods at The Sun in Baltimore, down 4.4% to 236,172, Sunday took a massive hit. Circulation on that day dropped 9% to 380,701.

The Hartford (Conn.) Courant’s daily circ was down 3.9% to 179,066 while Sunday dropped slightly, 1.5% to 264,539.

At The Philadelphia Inquirer, daily fell 7.5% to 330,622 while Sunday declined 4.5% to 682,214. Daily circulation at its sister pub, The Philadelphia Daily News, dropped 7% to 112,540.

The Star Tribune in Minneapolis reported declines. Daily was down 4.1% to 358,887 while Sunday dropped 6.3% to 596,333.

At the Orlando Sentinel, daily circulation decreased 2.5% to 214,283. Sunday fell 4.2% to 317,226.

Daily circulation at The Arizona Republic declined 2.5% to 397,294 and 2.6% on Sunday to 503,943.

The Plain Dealer in Cleveland showed daily circulation almost flat -- a small victory -- with a decline of 0.6% to 336,939. Sunday was down 2.3% to 446,487.

John Francois Kerry Says, "If You're in Iraq You're Dumb."

Failed Presidential candidate and Senator, John Kerry, who inherited his wealth and position by marrying a rich leftist who married a rich Republican and who has repeatedly insulted and smeared the armed forces of the United States, was at it again when he spoke last night at an Angelides campaign event at Pasadena City College. He is quoted as saying:

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

This hardly even needs a translation from me or anyone else. Just remember the first line of Laura Ingraham's book; "They think you're stupid." You can watch the vid here.

Lynne Cheney Smacks Down Wolf Blitzer

CNN and Wolf Blitzer apparently thought that they were going to get away with sandbagging the second lady but the tables were quickly turned by Lynne Cheney who called the terrorist propaganda tool on the carpet. A flustered Wolf Blitzer was unable to keep his story straight; first claiming that the terrorist sniper video was not propaganda and then just moments later admitting that it was.

And they wonder why their ratings are sinking like a stone.

LC: But what is CNN doing running terrorist tape of terrorists shooting Americans? I mean, I thought Duncan Hunter asked you a very good question, and you didn’t answer it. Do you want us to win?

WB: The answer, of course, is we want the United States to win. We are Americans. There’s no doubt about that. You think we want terrorists to win?

LC: Then why are you running terrorist propaganda?

WB: With all due respect, with all due respect, this is not terrorist propaganda.

LC: Oh, Wolf…

WB: This is reporting the news, which is what we do. We’re not partisan…

LC: Where did you get the film?

WB: We got the film…look, this is an issue that has been widely discussed, this is an issue that we reported on extensively. We make no apologies for showing that. That was a very carefully considered decision, why we did that. And I think, and I think, of your…

LC: Well, I think it’s shocking.

WB: If you’re a serious journalist, you want to report the news. Sometimes the news is good, sometimes the news isn’t so good.

LC: But Wolf, there’s a difference between news and terrorist propaganda. Why did you give the terrorists a forum?

WB: And if you put it in context, if you put it in context, that’s what news is. We said it was propaganda. We didn’t distort where we got it. We didn’t distort anything about it. We gave it the context. Let’s talk about another issue in the news, and then we’ll get to the book.