Decius wrote:

You don't understand my point. I'm not arguing that penetration comes from scholarly journals. I'm arguing that credibility comes from scholarly journals. Credibility does not come from analysis from partisan groups with an axe to grind, either. If there is a conclusion to be made here it ought to be made through formal analysis in a serious, peer reviewed context and those conclusions ought to be reported on, not expounded upon, in other places that have more reach.

That's unfair. I both understand and disagree with your point. If the majority of people still believed in the credibility of authentic scholarly works, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in right now. They don't. The only measures of credibility I see from the masses are (1) how prevalent a viewpoint or position is and (2) how well it fits in with the beliefs they already have. Respect for scholars is low these days. I don't argue that this fact should lead to us ignoring them. Scholars should continue to do what they must because someday people might start respecting them again, but in the meantime, they're not going to be the catalyst for change, unless in the foundational sense. Change is going to happen when people see a point being made in every publication they see, when the idea becomes so prevalent that it's credibility is assured because no idea could come to such prominence if it were without merit. I'm not talking only about Rolling Stone, because your arguments are probably mostly right in that specific case. I'm talking about all media, not single things in isolation. I'm saying that in the current climate penetration *IS* credibility. I find it sad and unfortunate, but just because I don't like it doesn't mean it's not the case.

RE: Rolling Stone : Was the 2004 Election Stolen?