In my experience, Slate is especially full of highly tendentious moderately right-wing arguments and positions. It may not be the National Review, but it's close. As for Satel (an anagram for Slate, incidentally, or is it vice versa) her extremely tendentious right-wing takes  on all matters relating to mental health cloud far too much journalistic space. Her view is basically that most people just need a good swift kick in the pants rather than any kind of caring or sympathy, and that is especially true if they are poor, of course. This view precedes any particular case or evidence. It is a specimen case of knee-jerkiness. 



On Jul 27, 2007, at 4:08 PM, Claudia Hemphill Pine wrote:

On 7/27/07, Michael Balter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:"Michael, curiosity: Do you read Slate for fascinating examples of propaganda like this, or do they also do any real journalism?"

Claudia, all you have to do is look at Slate once in a while and you can come up with your own answer to that question.

Your reaction to the article was not knee-jerk, thanks. I found the article interesting because I do think that personal agency is key to dealing with situations like addiction, even if it is not the only element necessary for recovery and rehabilitation, and I do think that we are awash with a lot of PC victomology. Just watch any program on Oprah or Larry King. And while the fact that one of the authors is at the AEI is relevant and interesting, I do not automatically discount someone's opinion because they are at a rightwing think tank any more than I automatically accept someone's opinion because they work for a left wing organization or write for a left publication.


Thanks, Michael - I will take the present example as illustrating Slate's approach.

I have to say, I don't "automatically discount someone's opinion because they are at a rightwing think tank," but I certainly take that as a relevant factor to understanding what they write, and especially why they write it.