Bill writes: >I'm not sure I understand. He claims he interviewed someone that he >in fact never did. Is this standard scholarly practice? Why do you >say it is non-controversial? Can you give me an example of how this >device is commonly used? Right before the controversy took off, in an article in the "alternative" rag the L.A. WEEKLY (owned, I believe, by the same people who own the VILLAGE VOICE), Davis admitted that he'd written a basically fictional interview of one of the leaders of the LA Friends of the River group. He showed it to the leader in question (before it was published, I think) and the guy said basically that it was what he _would_ have said. As I said before, l'Affaire Davis indicates that the Left has to have fewer errata than the New York TIMES. They're the establishment and can get away with the most egregious errors. It's the oppositionists who get into trouble for the slightest things. (Jesse Jackson never got this point. He should have known that even in an off-the-record interview, it was a big mistake to talk about "Hymie Town." Clinton has gotten away with stuff that's much more outrageous.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html
