I'm a bit uncertain how to read all those conjectures that follow several of the author's "I hope". The glaring contextualizing omissions are laid at the door of the writer of that article rather than being blamed directly on their originator (if one can be said to originate an omission). I hope it is an ironic device though in cases like this I myself favour direct language, so as to remove all doubt, as the lawyers would say.
CC, it's partly an ironic device given that the ABC has been rather consistent in not saying things that in my view ought to be said if one is going to say anything about, for instance, the security barrier. But I'm also extremely distrustful of the interviewer/writer's editing methods. Of course, if he had been seriously misrepresented it would be his responsibility to go public about it. As far as I'm aware he hasn't.
2 comments:
I'm a bit uncertain how to read all those conjectures that follow several of the author's "I hope". The glaring contextualizing omissions are laid at the door of the writer of that article rather than being blamed directly on their originator (if one can be said to originate an omission). I hope it is an ironic device though in cases like this I myself favour direct language, so as to remove all doubt, as the lawyers would say.
CC, it's partly an ironic device given that the ABC has been rather consistent in not saying things that in my view ought to be said if one is going to say anything about, for instance, the security barrier. But I'm also extremely distrustful of the interviewer/writer's editing methods. Of course, if he had been seriously misrepresented it would be his responsibility to go public about it. As far as I'm aware he hasn't.
Post a Comment