Ebert responded. He's right, 'an opinion is either correct or incorrect', which seems funny coming from a critic whose job is to spout opinions. Most people say 'its only an opinion', yet here's a movie critic who can say its also either right or wrong. I wonder what his views are concerning writing entertaining reviews versus writing 'correct' opinions?
Anyway, I still think the comment was apologizing for the NYT. Right or wrong?, who knows.
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:44:22 -0800
From: "Answer Man"
Subject: Re: Shattered Glass Review - my thoughts on your thoughts
Gee, you're sensitive. That paragraph was anti-NYT.
You know what? An opinion is either correct or incorrect regardless of whether it is liberal or conservative.
-- Best, RE Both 30% off at Amazon.com: --Roger Ebert's Movie Yearbook 2003 -- The Great Movies
, by Roger Ebert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boyd, David
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 4:31 PM
> Subject: Ebert, be a true critic or just stick to movies!
> I was reading Ebert's review of 'Shattered Glass'
> stumbled upon this quote:
> "When you hear about a case like this, or the similar fraud
> committed against the New York Times by Jayson Blair, you
> wonder how a world-class publication gets itself conned by
> some kid. Maybe the key word is "kid." Maybe the hotshot
> newcomers generate an attractive aura around themselves, so
> that editors would rather jump on the bandwagon than seem
> like old fogeys."
> I like Ebert, mostly for sentimental reasons, and because his
> review of movies has nothing to do with the realities of
> life, but he can get my blood to boil when he lets loose with
> his libelous liberal laments. Talk about twisting the facts,
> the "fraud committed against the New York Times", as if that
> paper of record is not responsible for ensuring the
> truthfullness of its reporters.
> "Boo-hooo. The poor NYT, getting duped by a malicious
> youngster. The editor's only wanted to seem 'cool' to all
> the hip young kids they were employing. Anyone could have
> been fooled by such fiction!"
> Why doesn't Ebert quit being an apologist for the NYT and
> start being critical of failure. He is a 'critic', isn't he?
> If the NYT's didn't have a flawed hiring policy (hiring by
> race and not by value) they would't have allowed a con-artist
> in their midst.
> David Boyd