Responding to the overwhelmingly negative reaction to Edward Luttwak's recycling of Daniel Pipes' garbage earlier this month, New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt concludes:
With a subject this charged, readers would have been far better served with more than a single, extreme point of view. When writers purport to educate readers about complex matters, and they are arguably wrong, I think The Times cannot label it opinion and let it go at that.The Times' readers would have also been far better served by simply not allowing a conservative military historian with no apparent training in Islamic jurisprudence to hold forth on the finer points of sharia law on the Times' esteemed op-ed page in the first place. But it's good that there now seems to be some consensus about what unscholarly trash Luttwak's piece was.
Great post! It saws strong argument to refer to the open innovation movement in government. This explanation would require far fewer friends outside this arena and is generally well accepted
Posted by: gclub | October 28, 2011 at 04:48 AM