I don't disagree with the findings in the Clemens Report; I don't agree with them either -- as I (embarrassedly) revealed today, I don't really follow baseball much. But I *do* find the rhetoric of the Clemens Report to be weak -- and this is a weakness which the Freakonomics/NY Times bloggers exploited. If the Clemens Report writers had handled their writing better, they would be less vulnerable to attack. In other words: a clear analysis of rhetoric, even a critique, can *strengthen* an argument -- by airing out and fixing its weaknesses before they can be exploited.
This goes double, at least according to some, for Clemens's conduct during the trial -- a recent Times article actually (surprisingly) defends him, by showing that he isn't handling "spin" that well (and in doing so, sends some helpful spin his way):
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/sports/baseball/13clemens.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Michael McCann of Sports Illustrated has a different spin on Clemens's conduct: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/michael_mccann/02/13/clemens.hearings/index.html
(a very well-written article, in my opinion).
Anyway, more to come on this -- but I'm posting this email to the blog, and I invite response, discussion, full-on debate on the subject (it will be good practice for your next essay assignment).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment