Akidis: Stefan Replies

I received an email from Stefan about one of my previous posts entitled "Just the Facts, Stefan, Just the Facts." I am not going to reprint it here, because it was sent to my email address, and I assume it to be a conversation between Mr. Milikowski and me and therefore, I don't think it would be proper to set up his exact quotes for scrutiny.

But, he did dispute my post. My post claimed that Sen. Davis had not been reappointed to the Energy Council. After I checked out some old Senate journals I had printed off BASIS from the last couple years, I confirmed that Mr. Milikowski was right, and I was wrong on this point. My apologies to Stefan, and to Sen. Davis as well.

The other minor point and major point still stand: Portia is not indicated as Lyda's chief of staff on the Senate Bipolar Working Group website. If Portia told Stefan that she was the chief of staff (which I have no reason to doubt), the website ought to be changed. I concede this is a minor point, and not a reason to rip Stefan apart.

The final point, that the tone of the article made it sound like the minority was "crying foul" was unjust because of the nature of the press conference still stands. As a citizen, I could only see the press conference as it was shown online. The centrality of the press conference as an indicator of what a group thinks (as a group) should be maintained. When Stefan began to see that the reactions were different, he needed to bring this up with the Senators he talked with, and ask them why. I fully realize this is a judgment call based on a value that most establishment media do not possess. I don't think this is some conspiracy. It is because we as a society have chosen to say that reporters must report objectively. They can't do that any more than they can set aside their own humanity.

Why did it not cross Stefan's mind to call into question the difference between the reaction of the Senators in the press conference and the reaction of the Senators in personal, one-on-one conversation? It is because, Stefan, like all reporters (and blogwriters) have assumptions when they search for information, and those assumptions can be used to interpret things wrongly or not see things which may be at odds with their assumptions. So, are we to give up on finding objective reporting? Are we citizens doomed to sift through the assumptions of reporters to find out the facts of what really happened? Am I saying that Plato's form of objective reporting does not exist here on earth? Yes. This is not something we should try to hide or shun. This is our humanity, and we should embrace it. (I am not talking about relativism, which modern gnostics and college professors embrace, and only Leninists, Nazis, and other nihilists put into practice.)

Stefan did not ask me to do so, but someone else emailed me, and demanded that I either address my posts or take them down. I consider this an insult. Simply pulling a post that has factual problems with it may be good enough for the Associated Press or al Reuters, but not here. The posts stay. The old post disputing Stefan will be amended with a link to this post, and a disclaimer.