Well, here is what Hersh said:
Quote:
...At least one comment suggested that Cohen's comeback after three years away from competition was nothing more than a publicity grab on her part.
Former U.S. world team member Jennifer Kirk joined that chorus,
Ah, she "joined the chorus' -- I am surprised Hersh didn't write -- "she joined the shrill chorus" or "she joined the strident chorus" -- rather than presenting her own thoughful opinion. OK.
Quote:
...writing in her Blog, ``Something about her statement doesn't add up.''
Note how Hersh just subtly changed statement. He is trying to make Kirk look guilty by spuriously associating her with those who thought that Sahsa's 'comeback' was just a publicity stunt. But what Jenny actually said was, "Something doesn't add up."
I will try again.
(a) Hersh's point is that he believes that journalists should, as a matter of principle, accept at face value the expalnations that athletes make regrading their injuries.
That is Hersh's thesis. Now he procedes to prove his thesis. Here is Hersh's argument in support of his thesis.
(b) Jenny Kirk. the skater, is a loser.
That argument ("b implies a") is a nonsensical, whether you believe (a) or not.
Mathman, You seem to be angry with Hersh for (a) twisting Jenny's words, and (b) using a false ad mulieram argument. But aren't you doing some twisting yourself?
--Judging words that you put in his mouth ("strident," "shrill") even while acknowledging he didn't use them. Not fair!
--Accusing him of misquoting Jenny ("Something about her statement doesn't add up") when he didn't (your version is the incorrect one)! (I also think you're reading way too much into the words "about her statement.")
--Accusing Hersh of mean and nonsensical logic in moving from Jenny's record to his view of ethical journalism. But his comments about Jenny's - however harsh - were not part of the argument. They were an aside in parentheses. The unspoken point was, It's easy to sit in judgment over Sasha - not so easy to do what she does - and Jenny of all people should know that. I don't think that's an unreasonable point for him to make.
IMO, there was a chorus, Jenny did join it, and she did imply (if not actually state, in fact while dancing around actually stating) that Sasha lied about her condition. Personally, I think her view of Sasha is colored by having been in direct competition with her. That's a conflict of interest, another matter of journalistic ethics, and I frankly think she should be disclosing it whenever she writes about Sasha.
If she wants to move into the journalistic big leagues she's going to have to get used to being held accountable for what she writes. That's part of the very essence of the media -- at least the way they're supposed to function.
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp What's the alternative - a closed press made up of insiders with no accountability? I hope not!
