DCIHasBeen Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 (edited) Is anyone else appalled at Mr. Boo's "fair and balanced" take on Mr. Kviz's amplification proposal? I have never read a more partial, biased piece of journalism in my life. Isn't the point of the article to present both sides equally and objectively present the issues without any sort of hints to writer partiality? You can read the article here. With all do respect, Michael isn't paid by DCI to be fair, unbiased and impartial. He's basically their in-house PR writer, not an editorialist, and there is nothing wrong with that. It's his job. If he were representing this material has his own, unbiased opinion, while furthering DCI's agenda (and on DCI's dime), then I'd take issue ... That doesn't seem to be the case here. Edited January 26, 2008 by DCIHasBeen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euponitone Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 With all do respect, Michael isn't paid by DCI to be fair, unbiased and impartial. He's basically their in-house PR writer, not an editorialist, and there is nothing wrong with that. It's his job.If he were representing this material has his own, unbiased opinion, while furthering DCI's agenda (and on DCI's dime), then I'd take issue ... That doesn't seem to be the case here. Not to mention that his first point is absolutely correct - the three proposals are mutually exlusive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Closed at author's request. Also, there's a 5 page discussion about the article in question right here: http://www.drumcorpsplanet.com/forums/inde...p;#entry2132426 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts