PDA

View Full Version : The DisInformation Campaign Begins



chaboard
04-20-2009, 06:40 AM
Worth noting this morning is that one of the head honchos of the School Board Removal movement had a long Point Of View article published in this morning's N&O. (http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columns/story/1490182.html) Even more worth noting is that THIS is his an argument he puts front & center in the first three paragraphs of the piece, :



There are, however, other controversial Wake school system policies. For example, mandatory year-round schools were sold by the board as the "silver bullet" to increase classroom space. In 2007 the board proceeded with the conversion of 22 schools to mandatory year-round status, without funding approval from the county commissioners and despite widespread outrage from parents whose families would be fractured by having their children on different school calendars. The system spent $4.7 million to convert these schools.

The results? Enrollment at these schools has actually decreased while class sizes have increased; of 134 class-size waivers requested by Wake County schools last year, 78 were for mandatory year-round schools.



Read that again. Notice anything? In that first paragraph the author goes out of his way to choose words to leave the impression that MANDATORY Year Round is a done deal. He uses past tense to say that not 1, not 2 but 22 schools (ooh, how could such a very specific number be wrong - it MUST be a fact!) have already been converted - note the past tense - to MYR. He tells us that the system has already spent - note the past tense - money ""to convert" schools when the only precedent in his article for "to convert" is "Mandatory Year Round" schools.

Then in the second paragraph he tries to not only reinforce the idea that this conversion has already happened - he tries to tell us the results are even known!!! He tells us the results (implied preceding object being MYR) are that enrollment has decreased - note the past tense again - and that most of the waivers were for
- note the past tense again - MANDATORY year round schools".


There is simply no other way to read those two paragraphs than as an argument that not only has MANDATORY year round already been implemented but we even know the results of the it as policy.

And yet.....we all know that out here in the real world not one single MANDATORY Year Round public school exists now in Wake county or [/b]has ever existed in Wake County[/b]. Not one! Ever! We also KNOW that those empty seats in those 122 schools that the author is trying to imply to be a failure of school board policy are, in fact, a DIRECT result of lawsuits filed and supported by the author and the other OPPONENTS of the policy!!!

Folks, those two paragraphs constitute a clear LIE. There is no way to charitably read them in any other way...they were written for the express purpose of getting people to believe that MYR schools exist in Wake county and that the result of MYR policies are empty seats in those very schools. Two things that are clearly, indisputably and inarguably not true as statements of objective fact.

You can support or not support MYR in good faith. You can support or not support the current school board in good faith. But when your leadoff agument in the battle for the board made by one of your frontline leaders is an intentional and willful LIE like that....you clearly have crossed the bounds of legitimate debate and have shown that you don't even have any faith that the facts support your position.

It's gonna be a long 5 months if mud like this is gonna be the standard fare.

MattD
04-20-2009, 09:45 AM
Worth noting this morning is that one of the head honchos of the School Board Removal movement had a long Point Of View article published in this morning's N&O. (http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columns/story/1490182.html) Even more worth noting is that THIS is his an argument he puts front & center in the first three paragraphs of the piece, :



There are, however, other controversial Wake school system policies. For example, mandatory year-round schools were sold by the board as the "silver bullet" to increase classroom space. In 2007 the board proceeded with the conversion of 22 schools to mandatory year-round status, without funding approval from the county commissioners and despite widespread outrage from parents whose families would be fractured by having their children on different school calendars. The system spent $4.7 million to convert these schools.

The results? Enrollment at these schools has actually decreased while class sizes have increased; of 134 class-size waivers requested by Wake County schools last year, 78 were for mandatory year-round schools.



Read that again. Notice anything? In that first paragraph the author goes out of his way to choose words to leave the impression that MANDATORY Year Round is a done deal. He uses past tense to say that not 1, not 2 but 22 schools (ooh, how could such a very specific number be wrong - it MUST be a fact!) have already been converted - note the past tense - to MYR. He tells us that the system has already spent - note the past tense - money ""to convert" schools when the only precedent in his article for "to convert" is "Mandatory Year Round" schools.

Then in the second paragraph he tries to not only reinforce the idea that this conversion has already happened - he tries to tell us the results are even known!!! He tells us the results (implied preceding object being MYR) are that enrollment has decreased - note the past tense again - and that most of the waivers were for
- note the past tense again - MANDATORY year round schools".


There is simply no other way to read those two paragraphs than as an argument that not only has MANDATORY year round already been implemented but we even know the results of the it as policy.

And yet.....we all know that out here in the real world not one single MANDATORY Year Round public school exists now in Wake county or [/b]has ever existed in Wake County[/b]. Not one! Ever! We also KNOW that those empty seats in those 122 schools that the author is trying to imply to be a failure of school board policy are, in fact, a DIRECT result of lawsuits filed and supported by the author and the other OPPONENTS of the policy!!!

Folks, those two paragraphs constitute a clear LIE. There is no way to charitably read them in any other way...they were written for the express purpose of getting people to believe that MYR schools exist in Wake county and that the result of MYR policies are empty seats in those very schools. Two things that are clearly, indisputably and inarguably not true as statements of objective fact.

You can support or not support MYR in good faith. You can support or not support the current school board in good faith. But when your leadoff agument in the battle for the board made by one of your frontline leaders is an intentional and willful LIE like that....you clearly have crossed the bounds of legitimate debate and have shown that you don't even have any faith that the facts support your position.

It's gonna be a long 5 months if mud like this is gonna be the standard fare.

So, will we see a LTE from you refuting the above???

chaboard
04-20-2009, 10:23 AM
It's gonna be a long 5 months if mud like this is gonna be the standard fare.

So, will we see a LTE from you refuting the above???

I'm thinking about it. The problem is the standard one when one is stuck playing defense trying to point out opposition lies - namely that to make the logical point that the argument IS a lie one necessarily must repeat key points of the lie. And that very repetition helps drive the lie into the brains of some people. It's this paradox of human cognition that slimeballs like Karl Rove rely on year after year....and it really is a dilemna for those who believe in honest debate. Either you leave the lies unchallenged....or you challenge them and paradoxically mentally re-inforce them. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. It's the big reason that lies and dirty campaigns really DO as a general rule work.

Plus...do you really think the N&O would give me enough space in an LTE to make the exact same argument I made above, logically laying out the mechanics and motives of the lie? Not a chance. If I do reply it would have to be a seriously compromised and condensed version of the post above. And the more detail that's left out he easier it is for the liars to try to say it's a he said-she said thing.

Still pondering.