A discerning reader, seeing all the facts laid out in one place like this, is far more likely to raise his eyebrows than to move on. Rather than agreeing with the putative premise of the article (that skeptics and questioners are alarmists), a reader might very well begin to wonder about the abundance of suspicious "coincidences" that OU and law enforcement so quickly dismiss. Curiosity piqued, the reader then spots the conveniently-included links to the blogs and clicks on them...
If I were a mainstream media journalist who smelled a story and wanted to find a way to get it out to a much wider audience (without drawing fire from the PC police) this is the way I'd do it.
...which is not to say that that's what the WSJ did. Either way, the public is served, imho.
Good point. And at least it made it to the WSJ.
I agree with you!
I agree. Between the lines, this story is not good for Boren and the "move on, nothing to see here" crowd.; especially given the increased credbility of blogs after Rathergate.
You make an excellent point. This writing is so devious-looking that it would make any thinking person wonder--the key here is "thinking person"--so many just soak it up and don't think at all. They sometimes show up on these threads insisting that everything is, indeed, mere coincidence. Or that there is an "innocent" explanation.
Actually, there might be, but I haven't heard it yet.
I agree that this editorial serves to generate more interest in the whole story - not less... Which is definitely a good thing.