few weeks ago, I happened to discuss with Marco Travaglio a guy who barely know. He seemed one of those dangerously uncritical admirers of the journalist. One of those who at one point saying, "Labor only reports the facts. "
feeling supported by his failed attempt, of course, trying to convince me that the story of the attack to the Cav, on 12/13/2009, was " all a conspiracy. "
(Travaglio do not know if he ever took a similar position. Maybe not. Maybe so. It is not impossible. But I do not know, I repeat. But in his individual fan a strong tendency to believe these theories. I do not know how strong, but a relationship between the two sets there.)
And then this guy kept repeating that he did not want to believe in the conspiracy, but that the official version of events were " inconsistencies. "
I made there are also, of course, to explain my point of view, naive and inexperienced. And that is that" inconsistencies "you can find in any movie filmed in the course of human history: the points the discussion shows that the inclination to seek the kind of answers we are behind barricades and reluctance to seek alternative information to those who consider themselves-conformist, and here's the counter-somersault.
Here , for example, there is a documented and transparent post that breaks down each element of the conspiracy theory.
But the conspiracy theorists, often, gioco è a perdere: secondo la logica dissennata che molti di loro adottano, la prova definitiva delle loro teorie è l'assenza di prove. E allora mambo, e gli asini volano.
Comunque, dicevo, lui è uno di quelli che Travaglio ha la verità in tasca.
Io sono uno di quelli che Francesco Costa è un bravo blogger, e in questo post riporta una critica interessante alle -ops!- incongruenze del suo metodo giornalistico.
0 comments:
Post a Comment