Errors of Omission

I only have a minute to comment on the following right now, so if any other Wizbang bloggers want to jump in on this one, please do.

Bluto has posted the full text of the email Glenn Greenwald received from Colonel Steven A. Boylan, Public Affairs Officer for General Petraeus, with the portions that Greenwald omitted from his post characterizing the email as “bizarre” highlighted. Interesting is what Greenwald chose to include in the post, and what he chose to omit. In his original post describing the email as bizarre, Greenwald said:

Everyone can decide for themselves if that sounds more like an apolitical, professional military officer or an overwrought right-wing blogger throwing around all sorts of angry, politically charged invective. Whatever else is true, it is rather odd that this was the sort of rhetoric Col. Boylan chose to invoke in service of his apparent goal of proving that there is nothing politicized about the U.S. military in Iraq.

Go read the email at Bluto’s site and then decide for yourself whether Colonel Boylan sounds like someone putting forth a particular political ideology or someone who is angry at a lazy guy who doesn’t do his homework and misrepresents everything the Colonel and others in Iraq are doing. Sounds like the latter to me. Reading the portions of the email that Greenwald chose to post and the ones he chose to omit convinces me that Colonel Boylan had good reason to feel that way, too.

Update: The difference between the version of the full email posted at Bluto’s site and the full version Greenwald links to (which Bluto pointed out in his post) is that Bluto highlighted the portions which were edited out of Greenwald’s post calling the email “bizarre.” I updated the post above (in italics) to make that clear.

Update II: The Greenwald post linked above is a good example of how those on the left have argued the issues surrounding the war in Iraq by omitting relevant facts. The media has done the same in much of their reporting. The way Greenwald omitted the section citing the errors Boylan noted from his post trying to paint the email as bizarre is the same way those on the left have debated the war in Iraq. They often link to a report, but then will cherry pick certain portions, while ignoring any favorable ones. In some cases, positive reports are not mentioned at all, but are omitted entirely. It is no wonder so many Americans still believe there has been no progress made in Iraq.

Update III: Okay, one last try. For those who still don’t get it, I will try one more time using Joe Citizen’s comment as a jump off point:

So Lorie, please explain.

Why did you sink to Greenwaldian levels of blog discourse by only reproducing one selected quote from Glenn’s article?

Because that was the part of his post that I was addressing — the claim that Col. Boylan’s email was “politically charged” and “bizarre.” If he had included some of the excerpts that Bluto highlighted (he would not have even had to include all of them) it would be evident to the reader that Boylan’s frustration was with the bad reporting on Iraq, including the specific errors he cited that Greenwald had committed.

This is such an incredibly phony arguement. Please tell me how many blog posts, or news stories, starting with your own, completely reproduce the full text of anything that they then comment on? If you write a story about
a NYT article, do you reproduce the full article in the body of your text?

No, but I don’t intentionally exclude all the parts that would reveal the point I was arguing to be invalid.

If you write about the SOTU address, do you include the whole thing?

It isn’t necessary to include the entire thing, but it is necessary in order to mount a valid and honest argument to not omit any parts relevant to the argument.

Or do you select those parts that you find of interest, and provide a link to the
rest?

It is fine to post excerpts in order to make an argument, as long as you don’t omit parts to completely distort the resulting post and mislead the reader. I think that when Greenwald excluded the part where Boylan pointed out the errors Greenwald had made the result was to distort the source of Boylan’s frustration, which was not that he was not reporting from a particular political point of view, but that he was getting stuff flatout wrong. That is why I said it is “interesting” to see which parts Greenwald left out.

What a dishonest and ridiculous post this is…

Read my post again. Read it without the updates. Here is the post in it’s entirety for those who need help,

I only have a minute to comment on the following right now, so if any other Wizbang bloggers want to jump in on this one, please do.

Bluto has posted the full text of the email Glenn Greenwald received from Colonel Steven A. Boylan, Public Affairs Officer for General Petraeus. Interesting is what Greenwald chose to include in the post, and what he chose to omit. In his original post Greenwald said:

“Everyone can decide for themselves if that sounds more like an apolitical, professional military officer or an overwrought right-wing blogger throwing around all sorts of angry, politically charged invective. Whatever else is true, it is rather odd that this was the sort of rhetoric Col. Boylan chose to invoke in service of his apparent goal of proving that there is nothing politicized about the U.S. military in Iraq.”

Go read the email at Bluto’s site and then decide for yourself whether Colonel Boylan sounds like someone putting forth a particular political ideology or someone who is angry at a lazy guy who doesn’t do his homework and misrepresents everything the Colonel and others in Iraq are doing. Sounds like the latter to me. Reading the portions of the email that Greenwald chose to post and the ones he chose to omit convinces me that Colonel Boylan had good reason to feel that way, too.

Now go back and read Bluto’s post — because it highlights those portions that were excluded from Greenwald’s argument that Boylan’s email was “politically charged” and “bizarre” and “unsolicited.” I think it is incredibly interesting to see which portions Greenwald excluded and a good example of what we see from the left everyday in the debate over the war in Iraq.

Rangel's Tax Plan a Return to Carternomics?
"Nuts!"