******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
@Jeff: >The effect of the publication policy in Counterpunch has been documented quantitatively in the Hendrik article. I'm not sure what you mean by this. What "documentation" did Hendrik provide? She compared a small handful of "right-wing" authors with a small handful of "left-wing" authors, there is no actual measure of what extent these individual authors are representative of the overall number of authors or pieces published by CP. That is, the left-wing authors may only be a small percentage of the overall number of lefty authors whereas the right-wing authors may be the whole thing. And if that's true (and I think it is) then that would actually contradict her "analysis". The lower numbers of articles per person from the left might be representative of the fact that most articles that CP runs are from left-wing authors, and as a result there are less articles from each left-wing individual. In short there's nothing to suggest that these are appropriate or proportional samples, she is on a witch-hunt. I'm not sure what your separate disagreement is about the other stuff so I'll wait on you. - Amith On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Jeff via Marxism < marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote: > ******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > ***************************************************************** > > At 01:45 23-07-15 +0000, Charles Faulkner via Marxism wrote: > > > >the case for cp being a white supremacist/fascist periodical is > overstated...... > >.... > >the weaker claim that cp is diluting its left credentials by providing a > >forum for the libertarian (that's what i'll call it) right seems worthy of > >consideration. > > I don't necessarily disagree with those observations, and as I said, it > hadn't ever been my impression that Counterpunch published more from the > right than the left. Except that this article did an apparently honest > article count in which that emerged statistically. Nor has anyone asserted > that it's a "white supremacist/fascist periodical." However the author > presents evidence that Cockburn DID have the conscious orientation of > promoting a right-left alliance (though I trust his underlying intentions > were more left-wing) and that this is reflected in their openness to > accepting material from those who are clearly on the RIGHT but also seek > such an alliance (but intending the opposite outcome). So the practical > issue might be reduced to which side is to gain from such unprincipled > behaviour. I think the answer to that is clear: the side to gain is not the > one based on clarity, self-consciousness, and scientific analysis of > historical development, but rather the side based on emotion and hysteria > (nationalism, racism, homophobia, conspiracy theorism, religion, fear of > modernity). > > The effect of the publication policy in Counterpunch has been documented > quantitatively in the Hendrik article. Some disagreement has been expressed > with regard to those numbers, both by Jeffrey St. Clair as I mentioned > before, and by Ron J. who complained (in the comments section) that he had > 400 articles missing from the left-wing side of the statistical comparison. > However despite all that, Counterpunch has to explain why as many as 674 > articles were published by "white supremacist authors ..... including Gilad > Atzmon, Mary Rizzo, Israel Shamir, and Jeff Blankfort, known for their > racist conspiracism and holocaust denial, white nationalist and Reagan-era > US Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, Alison Weir of > If Americans Knew, Bill and Kathleen Christison, and Franklin Lamb." Even > if there had been many more leftist authors. 674 is too large a number to > chalk up to "mistakes." > > Amith's disagreement (in the excerpt below) is much more serious and > strikes at the heart of our difference. I will further reply in a later > post when I have time to write. > > - Jeff > > At 10:38 23-07-15 +0200, A.R. G via Marxism wrote: > > > >I do not agree with this. Right-libertarians are obviously not "leftist," > >but how are they any more of a dilution than, say, various liberal voices? > >I doubt anyone is willing to suggest that *The Nation* or *The Guardian* > are > >diluting left credentials by running pieces from liberal authors that do > >not engage in class analysis and the like. In fact, when you consider the > >variety of voices that exist and float around on the left, Ron Paulists > are > >particularly *good*, if not anti-capitalist. They are the ones who opposed > >the Iraq invasion, the PATRIOT Act, the anti-Muslim mob at Ground Zero, > >etc. Compared to the "Progressive Except Palestine" crowd I'd rather hear > >from them. > > > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: > http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/amithrgupta%40gmail.com > _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
