A book that came out not too long again suggested that quick evaluations can be more effective than lengthy, detailed ones. I'm not sure if this is an example of that concept, but it might be.
In looking at various sites, I came across one from the Eteam for the National Center for Policy Analysis. It can be found here. Right off the bat, I didn't trust it. It's a good looking site -- sober design, nice graphics -- but something about it made me wonder how impartial it really was. Of course, most sites on the web aren't impartial; if they have an opinion on a topic, they let you know, right up front, frequently with many exclamation points and liberal use of what I've heard called the F-bomb. This site didn't do that. It says, on the page's masthead, that it provides 'Accurate Information on Energy & Environment Issues'.
I think that was the first tickler. 'Accurate Information' -- why would you need to flag that? It could be because you recognize the bias in most sites, and wanted to reassure the reader that here, at least, that didn't prevail. But like the site I came across this morning, which offered a free security analysis of my PC, and noted that I might get a request to 'allow unsecure information'; if so, just go ahead, because it doesn't really mean anything, when someone feels the need to promise that they're delivering Accurate Information, I wonder, just a bit.
The article is titled 'The Truth About Al Gore's Film: An Inconvenient Truth'. Well, there's another tickler. When people feel it necessary to tell me that they're going to tell me the truth, it seems to mean that they're going to give me their version of the truth. It may be that what they're about to tell me is actually more true than what I already thought; maybe not. But feelling the need to tell me, up front, that this is the Truth -- well, it worries me.
So I started to scan the article, looking for buzzwords. I found them. "The material... is not new." "Gore has persistently erred...he has not taken the opportunity to correct his errors." "The movie is filled with misstatements, half-truths, and verbal sleights of hand..."
I stopped at that point. My guess was that the rest of the article would be in the same vein. Al's wrong, we're right.
I blinked.
