Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2002 :: February ::
Re: New York Times
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0576  Tuesday, 27 February 2002

[1]     From:   Brandon Toropov <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 26 Feb 2002 10:19:14 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0567 Re: New York Times

[2]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 26 Feb 2002 15:21:32 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0567 Re: New York Times


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brandon Toropov <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 26 Feb 2002 10:19:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 13.0567 Re: New York Times
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0567 Re: New York Times

          Sean Lawrence writes,

I would be obliged if Brandon Toropov would cite the issue date of the
item he's congratulating David and Terry on.  I'd like to read it, but
don't subscribe.

It's Sunday, February 24, in the Arts section. Quite a lot of letters.

Brandon

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 26 Feb 2002 15:21:32 -0500
Subject: 13.0567 Re: New York Times
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0567 Re: New York Times

> The editorial is only seven paragraphs long and necessarily assumes
> acquaintance with many aspects of the death penalty controversy,
> including details of the Columbia study.

If The Times assumed we already knew the details of the Columbia study,
why did it consider it necessary to tell us what it said in general?  It
would not have been a major blow to The Times's budget to say that 68%
of convictions were set aside because the appellate courts concluded
that there were "procedural irregularities," rather than "serious
errors."  The former is fairly accurate; the latter frightening and
wrong.

> Rather than "scaring people
> into believing that most people sentenced to death are innocent," the
> editorial actually uses such careful phrasing as "reduce the risk of
> executing innocent people"

This actually makes my point.  By saying that 68% were convicted as a
result of "serious errors" and then talking about "reducing the risk of
executing innocent people" The Times set up a sort of equation between
the two.  That is my objection.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.