Comments on: WAC on War update http://leifuss.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/wac-on-war-update/ Travels on the Convex Hull of Normality Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:10:34 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: leifuss http://leifuss.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/wac-on-war-update/#comment-4653 leifuss Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:35:17 +0000 http://leifuss.wordpress.com/?p=57#comment-4653 I agree entirely. Whatever the original aims were, the fact is that was widely misinterpreted by bloggers and members of the WAC mailing list. Claire (the WAC president and Umberto) have taken steps to clarify the situation for the mailing list. I've told those those bloggers I know and raise dthe issue. I'm a little reluctant to personally chase up each avenue though, now that the issuers are aware of the situation. I feel it would be more appropriate for them to do so and I'm not sure I entirely understand their reluctance. I agree entirely. Whatever the original aims were, the fact is that was widely misinterpreted by bloggers and members of the WAC mailing list. Claire (the WAC president and Umberto) have taken steps to clarify the situation for the mailing list. I’ve told those those bloggers I know and raise dthe issue. I’m a little reluctant to personally chase up each avenue though, now that the issuers are aware of the situation. I feel it would be more appropriate for them to do so and I’m not sure I entirely understand their reluctance.

]]> By: Gabriel http://leifuss.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/wac-on-war-update/#comment-4652 Gabriel Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:21:01 +0000 http://leifuss.wordpress.com/?p=57#comment-4652 So the problem, it seems to me from these and other postings I've seen on the subject, is that the original proposal was not worded as clearly as it might have been. Even when the two paragraphs formed a single proposal, it was ambiguous as to whether the second refered to all conflict or to a putative invasion of Iran only. The addition of "in specific regard to the motion addressing Iran above" was made to clarify this in the case of two separate proposals, but then omitted by the proposer when the proposals were re-merged in the press release (on the assumption that the limitation was now clear, which it wasn't). It remains true, however, that it is much harder to correct a story than to disseminate a misleading one (since corrections make less jazzy headlines), especially if the slightly incorrect version suggests an outcome you would have approved anyway. Note that I'm not suggesting any dishonesty or machievellianism here, only natural forces in the media. Have you written to <i>New Scientist</i> letters page to correct this story, by the way? It might be better coming from someone who was there and can report events first hand. So the problem, it seems to me from these and other postings I’ve seen on the subject, is that the original proposal was not worded as clearly as it might have been. Even when the two paragraphs formed a single proposal, it was ambiguous as to whether the second refered to all conflict or to a putative invasion of Iran only. The addition of “in specific regard to the motion addressing Iran above” was made to clarify this in the case of two separate proposals, but then omitted by the proposer when the proposals were re-merged in the press release (on the assumption that the limitation was now clear, which it wasn’t).

It remains true, however, that it is much harder to correct a story than to disseminate a misleading one (since corrections make less jazzy headlines), especially if the slightly incorrect version suggests an outcome you would have approved anyway. Note that I’m not suggesting any dishonesty or machievellianism here, only natural forces in the media.

Have you written to New Scientist letters page to correct this story, by the way? It might be better coming from someone who was there and can report events first hand.

]]>