RobbyH - can I suggest that you take the off topic discussion out to the general forums. You should be able to create a new thread there and put a link to it here for those who want to follow it.

Now for the article.

I broadly agree with the author but do wonder how realistic it is to achieve a useful disclosure by those who want to hide an advocacy role.

How detailed does a persons bio have to be to tell the reader what really motivates the author? We are influenced not only by professional roles but also by our own personal history and to some extent by our relationships. Can a bio ever really cover that stuff adequately?

If I want to know how much weight to give an authors words on a topic I'll often do a search for other work by the same author (or the group from a known affiliation).
- What else do they write about?
- Do they have a history of advocacy on the same topic?
- How fairly do they deal with their opponents arguments (do they use strawmen tactics in their arguments or unbalanced selective quoting)?
- Do they show evidence of giving honest consideration to the alternative viewpoint on the topic in question?

Looking for the answers to questions such as these may be of more help than a carefully controlled list of affiliations.

R0bert

Hi RObert,

Many apologies. Of course I went off topic and should not have, regrettably I needed to respond to Jolanda as her interpretation is innacurate and out of context. I also do not hide from what I write. By the way it is Jolanda, not I, that introduced this issue here, as she says herself. Enough Jolanda.

But it is actually quite a valid example of knowing who is saying what, and why, is it not? Which demonstrates the ability of some to muddy the waters, divert attention and so on. In this topic Jolanda sought to turn the topic to her and her troubles. Sorry I responded at all mate.

I have no intention of responding to Jolanda further, here or elsewhere as good intentions are misinterpreted.

Peace to her and her children. By all means read Jolanda's website/blog.

West said: "articles or essays are venues for information or points of view which only allow broad strokes."

Not so, brevity enables a skilled writer to be even more disciplined.

In this case the author is a highly educated academic and wordsmith who drew the two examples from fields in which she claims considerable professional expertise.

Is it wrong to expect that academics should model independence, fairness and balance when going to print?

You should give the author credit for being very skilled in rhetoric.

It really doesn't matter who the persuader is or where he/she comes from, it is his/her skill in in the black arts of rhetoric that we should be most cautious of.

Yes Cornflour , I am just very tolerant about it. The level of amount of detail in an article is all in the end about personal preference. Obviously some broad stokes can be too broad. I dont like to get hung up on prose as the information I would like from an expert is the useful information and not the fancy bits.

This contradicts the spirit of the article but a well balanced article can say nothing. In the debate of 'do pink elephants fly ?' do we have to put foward the pro argument in depth when the only valid point is that there are no pink elephants ? Should I have added flying to pink elephants?

I get the authors point

So the end justifies the means and where it suits us it is quite OK to discriminate because of alleged religious belief?

Also, it is quite OK to decry one company/organisation for doing what others do as a normal part of their business?

We cannot very well criticise the alleged lack of ethics of others if we 'flex' our ethics and fairness in doing so.

Thank you for your responses and I think we will have to differ on this one.

Cornflower you can find discrimination in everything I think its an issue of where to draw the line of corruption.

Nobody expects mining companies or banks to be self regulating thats why tax payers form democracies, so that government can perform that role. The bias is still there , it is biased toward the well being of the nation.

Religions discriminate on the basis of religions and gender and sexual preference and constructs of superstitious ritual and codes. This is why when Tony Abbott handed over power over womens lives to the Catholic Church it results in a trainwreck of destroyed lives and a boom time for misery.

The key is awareness and to act upon it responsibly.