On Thursday, March 18, 1999 at 19:18:33 (-0500) Louis Proyect writes: >... >I don't have the Counterpunch article handy, but it makes the case that the >errors in Davis's book are par for the course for a 500+ page book. Every >few days the NY Times prints a half-dozen corrections, to put things in >context. The beef with Davis is over interpretation. A hostile Salon >article takes him to task for representing Bunker Hill as an anti-black >gated neighborhood, when they point out there actually no gates in sight. >And so on. And so on. > >Mostly Davis's book is about interpretation. It is an ecosocialist analysis >of Los Angeles's self-destructive path. This radical interpretation has >pissed off the ruling class and they find it more effective to line up >generation X journalists than the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Salon >is more and more falling into this niche, a space occupied also by the NY >Press, a neoconservative throwaway in NYC that prints Alex Cockburn. All fine and good, but errors are different than deliberate fabrication. This is what I seek to confirm or deny... Bill
