12/21/24
September 05, 2012
Question About Armstrong Post: After reading the book, no doubt is left in the reviewer's mind as to Armstrong's guilt. If this is a quote from the article, shouldn't it be in quotes? And if it isn't, it's editorializing, and doesn't belong in a fpp.
posted by lil_brown_bat to editorial policy at 10:41 AM - 5 comments
llb: From your comment, I'm guessing you didn't read the article (since you'd know if it was a quote or not). Like tahoemoj says, it's not editorializing if it's a fact.
posted by grum@work at 11:41 PM on September 04, 2012
llb: From your comment, I'm guessing you didn't read the article (since you'd know if it was a quote or not).
I did, in fact. It was a rhetorical question.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:58 AM on September 05, 2012
Which are a great tool for engendering discussion, right?
posted by yerfatma at 10:09 AM on September 05, 2012
I did, in fact.
Then it should have been obvious that the sentence was an accurate paraphrase of the reviewer's sentiments, not an attempt to editorialize. It doesn't say there's no doubt of Armstrong's guilt. It says the reviewer has no doubt. Big difference.
From the post: "After reading the book, no doubt is left in the reviewer's mind as to Armstrong's guilt."
From the review: "The Secret Race isn't just a game changer for the Lance Armstrong myth. It's the game ender. No one can read this book with an open mind and still credibly believe that Armstrong didn't dope. It's impossible."
posted by rcade at 10:40 AM on September 05, 2012
No. Looks like straight objectivity to me. It relates to the book reviewer's state of mind. After the reviewer read the book, he had no doubt as to Armstrong's guilt. It is a statement of 100% fact.