Daniel Peterson wrote:* There is also nothing intrinsically unethical about writing or publishing negative book (or film or theater or music) reviews, or critiquing an author's work in a seminar. These are not, as such, "smears."
Excellent point, if the New York Times were to have sent a critic to pan a revival of the Sound of Music, there is nothing unethical about that - they were simply invoking editorial prerogative. If their book reviewer were told to dig up dirt on Dr. Seuss, then he should start digging without ethical qualms. After all, he does not have qualms written into his job description.
* The FARMS Review makes no more pretense of being non-partisan or neutral than do The Nation and National Review. Readers of such periodicals know that they are seeing a response from a particular point on the ideological spectrum. There is nothing illegitimate about this.
Another excellent point. Pretenses about being impartial are ill founded. This obvious favoring of the scientific approach has kept Creationism out of almost all university biology departments. FARMS has its point of view and should feel free to push it.
I may or not be back here before my departure for the Middle East.
-DCP
Miami
Best wishes for a safe trip. Take plenty of sun block and watch out for camel pies.