2/2
>>> Continued from previous message
>>The answer is, newspaper articles are more likely to be less
>>biased than a book that has been written with embellishments
>>and wording designed to sell ideas that may be considered
>>exaggerations or falsehoods by main-stream thinking. ...Just
>>my point of view, of course.  ...And then there's the fact
>>that I was there.
>>Best regards,
>> Jack
You then repeated...
>Again, what gives you the idea that newspaper articles are
>more likely to be less biased. Yes, the journalists talk of
>objectivity, but when we begin to look at the tone, we see
>their bias showing. As just one example, THE NEW YORK
>TIMES, when the Air Force released their first report, wrote
>an article claiming that the Air Force had explained the
>Roswell case. They did not bother to call me for a quote.
>The didn't bother to call Stan Friedman. They didn't seem to
>be interested in the other side. Instead, they called some
>university professors who suggested that we were writing about
>the Roswell crash just to make a living. Not exactly the epitome
>of sound journalist investigation. In other words, they had a
>bias.
>Just a few thoughts.
>KRandle
To which I say again...  ...Because I was _there_! I was
able to read the newspaper articles on the spot. The book
didn't come out until years later. That, in my opinion
is grounds to consider the on the spot news accounts as
the most accurate source of information. The book is
useful upon reflection, but then, I didn't know of any
such book until recently. Call me stubborn, but that's
just the way I feel about it. The newspaper accounts were
written at the time the events were actually taking place.
The book came along years later after the fact.
Best regards,
Jack
 * SLMR 2.1a * "I'm having an old friend for dinner!"  -  H. Lector
--- FMail 1.22
---------------