Replies

Leadpenny, I am not trying to shoot the messenger. I am trying to think critically about this. As someone who deals with peer-reviewed scientific research, I understand the value of providing verifiable sources. It is the only way that someone within my community can be taken seriously. I know the Army filed the press release. That lends credence to the AP story. I want you to understand that I don't take issue with the fact that this story got out. I do take issue with the fact that Lenz chose to cite unverifiable sources in order to get his story out. Nations have risen and fallen, wars won and lost, and lives preserved or wasted on the quality of the information the public chooses (or is led to) accept. I appreciate your position on this. But the fact remains that Lenz padded his story with unverifiable sources. That's what we in the scientific community call "imbellishment," and such papers are summarily thrown out without further review. If a writer wants to tell me a story that he or she expects me to believe, he or she should at least do me the courtesy of identifying the sources used so I can look at their work and draw my own conclusions. Lenz did not write his piece in a way that allows the reader that right. What Lenz is really saying here is, "The Army is still investigating this case, but I heard from someone that these guys are guilty as hell, and that's what I want you to get out of this." And while I concede that not all writers follow this practice, imbellishment is standard practice among the MSM. Not exclusively so, but standard practice nonetheless. That should compel you to challenge the quality and veracity of the information that you receive from any source. There is nothing wrong with holding the press to a high standard. Millions of Americans rely on the press for information. But historically, the press has fallen pitifully short of the mark. Does that mean that they are all evil? Of course not. Does it make me less inclined to trust them? Absolutely. So questioning the veracity and integrity of any news story- from every source- is perfectly within the scope of my responsibility as a critically-thinking and socially-responsible American if I am to act appropriately and reasonably. I'm not shooting the messenger- I'm decrying the messenger's attempt to lead the reader to an assumption of guilt.

I was enjoying and appreciating that read until the very last sentence. I take everything this Lenz feller has said and file it away. I'm not being led nor will I take it as gospel until there is sufficient corroboration from other sources. What is sufficient? I don't know. It's kind of like the definition of pornography - I know it when I see it. Beyond that, Lenz has a reputation to protect, and until he proves himself unreliable, I'll go with what he has reported. I'll bet his superiors see it the same way.

I think you and I are at the glass is half empty/glass is half full stage.