vincebodie
01-10-2008, 11:13 PM
I've got something for him...
Dear Mr. Kirkchin,
I am writing in response to your article about Dr. Ron Paul. After having taken a couple of days to digest what you have written, I would like to make a few observations.
Whenever a subject as potentially damaging to one's character as racism is discussed, it is my opinion that the level of research done should be commensurate with the importance of the subject matter. In this case, it appears to me that you have fallen quite short in this regard. The fact that you actually got up from behind your keyboard to make a trip to the library to research your article is offered up to the reader as evidence of your commitment to an acceptable level of research. In this day and age, with the entire history of the written works of mankind seemingly available on the internet at the stroke of a few keys, it sounds on the surface to be quite a commendable act to actually get out on the streets and do some real research.
However, this tactic falls flat when offered up to the harsh light of real journalistic integrity. You offer no irrefutable link between the writings you found and Dr. Paul himself - no more so than if I were to pen your name to this letter. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has any proof that these writings are in fact his. The fact that the origins of these newsletters has been discussed ad nauseum in the past, and that they have been routinely dismissed for not being Dr. Paul's own writing, is undeniable, yet you somehow fail to mention it, just as you to fail to mention that he has been elected to ten congressional terms while Trent Lott was quickly ushered out of office for racially charged statements which were verifiably on record as being truly his own words. But this is only a small example of the lack of depth in your research, regardless of any arguments one might make about whether or not Dr. Paul should be held accountable for anything and everything written by those associated with him.
But for me, the most glaring issue is that you failed miserably in the one area that any journalist with a shred of integrity would know to do without fail, and this is to cross check your sources. The fact that you included no mention of any personal interviews you have had with anyone associated with Dr. Paul, or better yet any man to man discussions which you have had with the Dr. Paul himself before going to press, is proof that you were either: (a) unprepared, or (b) had an agenda against Dr. Paul before you ever typed the first word of your article. The timing of your article on the day before the New Hampshire primary strongly suggests the latter (or both).
Lest we forget, this is a man who is running for the highest office in the land - a man with two decades worth of public service to our nation under his belt. Does this not afford him the common decency of a legitimate inquiry before going to press with such potentially damaging and libelous statements? Did it ever occur to you that with all of his history in public life to draw from, that you might come up with more damning evidence than just some fifteen to twenty year old photocopies of newsletters which he claims to have never even seen before they were published? Did it occur to you to mention one of the first men who popped into his mind when he was asked about potential running mates? Do a little research on Walter Williams if you're not familiar with him and feel free to get back to me on that one.
How about interviewing any of the thousands of people that he has dealt with throughout his public life - his congressional staffers and colleagues, his constituents, his patients, others in the media, etc.? Did this ever cross your mind? Surely you could have come up with some more substantial evidence somewhere if the racism your article implies was true; he would have uttered something in public or written something that was undeniably his own writing to back up your claims. The fact that nearly everyone who has ever followed his career will assert that the articles in question do not sound like anything else he has ever stated or written is apparently lost on you.
If even for a moment you really thought that Dr. Paul was evil incarnate, and that you could find some information that would bury his campaign once and for all, then didn't you owe it to yourself and your readers to do a more thorough job in your research? If 60 Minutes had done an expose with as little evidence as you offered, their credibility would have been irreparably damaged, but apparently you believe that you can just sling mud however you see fit and still call yourself a responsible journalist. Shame on you.
What is most ironic about all of this is that it is Dr. Paul's staunch defense of freedom of speech that makes it possible not only for someone to take advantage of his tolerance and ghost write something that may not reflect his views, but also for you to write such an irresponsible rebuttal. Once again, shame on you for lowering yourself to the level of the type of "wackos" you are supposedly "outing". And though I don't agree with every view expressed in those newsletters, at least they offered up easily substantiated facts to back up their positions. On the other hand, your kind of yellow journalism reeks of the type of smear campaigns that will only lead us further toward a world of intolerance and mob rule. In my mind, your piece was no more credible than any cover article on any one of the tabloids lining the aisles of my local grocery market.
Sincerely,
Vincent Bodie
Glendale, CA
Dear Mr. Kirkchin,
I am writing in response to your article about Dr. Ron Paul. After having taken a couple of days to digest what you have written, I would like to make a few observations.
Whenever a subject as potentially damaging to one's character as racism is discussed, it is my opinion that the level of research done should be commensurate with the importance of the subject matter. In this case, it appears to me that you have fallen quite short in this regard. The fact that you actually got up from behind your keyboard to make a trip to the library to research your article is offered up to the reader as evidence of your commitment to an acceptable level of research. In this day and age, with the entire history of the written works of mankind seemingly available on the internet at the stroke of a few keys, it sounds on the surface to be quite a commendable act to actually get out on the streets and do some real research.
However, this tactic falls flat when offered up to the harsh light of real journalistic integrity. You offer no irrefutable link between the writings you found and Dr. Paul himself - no more so than if I were to pen your name to this letter. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has any proof that these writings are in fact his. The fact that the origins of these newsletters has been discussed ad nauseum in the past, and that they have been routinely dismissed for not being Dr. Paul's own writing, is undeniable, yet you somehow fail to mention it, just as you to fail to mention that he has been elected to ten congressional terms while Trent Lott was quickly ushered out of office for racially charged statements which were verifiably on record as being truly his own words. But this is only a small example of the lack of depth in your research, regardless of any arguments one might make about whether or not Dr. Paul should be held accountable for anything and everything written by those associated with him.
But for me, the most glaring issue is that you failed miserably in the one area that any journalist with a shred of integrity would know to do without fail, and this is to cross check your sources. The fact that you included no mention of any personal interviews you have had with anyone associated with Dr. Paul, or better yet any man to man discussions which you have had with the Dr. Paul himself before going to press, is proof that you were either: (a) unprepared, or (b) had an agenda against Dr. Paul before you ever typed the first word of your article. The timing of your article on the day before the New Hampshire primary strongly suggests the latter (or both).
Lest we forget, this is a man who is running for the highest office in the land - a man with two decades worth of public service to our nation under his belt. Does this not afford him the common decency of a legitimate inquiry before going to press with such potentially damaging and libelous statements? Did it ever occur to you that with all of his history in public life to draw from, that you might come up with more damning evidence than just some fifteen to twenty year old photocopies of newsletters which he claims to have never even seen before they were published? Did it occur to you to mention one of the first men who popped into his mind when he was asked about potential running mates? Do a little research on Walter Williams if you're not familiar with him and feel free to get back to me on that one.
How about interviewing any of the thousands of people that he has dealt with throughout his public life - his congressional staffers and colleagues, his constituents, his patients, others in the media, etc.? Did this ever cross your mind? Surely you could have come up with some more substantial evidence somewhere if the racism your article implies was true; he would have uttered something in public or written something that was undeniably his own writing to back up your claims. The fact that nearly everyone who has ever followed his career will assert that the articles in question do not sound like anything else he has ever stated or written is apparently lost on you.
If even for a moment you really thought that Dr. Paul was evil incarnate, and that you could find some information that would bury his campaign once and for all, then didn't you owe it to yourself and your readers to do a more thorough job in your research? If 60 Minutes had done an expose with as little evidence as you offered, their credibility would have been irreparably damaged, but apparently you believe that you can just sling mud however you see fit and still call yourself a responsible journalist. Shame on you.
What is most ironic about all of this is that it is Dr. Paul's staunch defense of freedom of speech that makes it possible not only for someone to take advantage of his tolerance and ghost write something that may not reflect his views, but also for you to write such an irresponsible rebuttal. Once again, shame on you for lowering yourself to the level of the type of "wackos" you are supposedly "outing". And though I don't agree with every view expressed in those newsletters, at least they offered up easily substantiated facts to back up their positions. On the other hand, your kind of yellow journalism reeks of the type of smear campaigns that will only lead us further toward a world of intolerance and mob rule. In my mind, your piece was no more credible than any cover article on any one of the tabloids lining the aisles of my local grocery market.
Sincerely,
Vincent Bodie
Glendale, CA