LETTERS: Balancing Skepticism and Offense

To the editors:


I’ve just seen the CNN article about the Holocaust-denier ad and note that “Al Tompkins, a faculty member at the Poynter Institute, ... said he hopes this will become a ‘teachable moment.’” It seems to me that it is also an opportunity for a premier college newspaper to apply skills for investigative journalism that are increasingly disappearing from mainstream print media. What are responsible academic researchers finding out about the motivation and mechanism of such “denial” movements, including denials of the Holocaust, the “birther” movement, and so many more? Do these movements get more visibility or involvement in hard economic straits? What approaches have all media taken to “denial” ads, and with what results? Are “tea party”-type naysayers and shouters denialists, or are they engaged in vigorous public debate?

By focusing on the one ad, even if it is to criticize it, we give its sponsor too much airtime and give the public too little perspective. With a good follow-up story about both the imperfection of running a newspaper and the minuscule role of deniers in the larger scheme of things, The Crimson would do a great service.

I believe that the health of a society depends in large part on citizen’s intelligent skepticism—unwillingness to merely accept what is put before it as “gospel” (e.g., there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq because there must be, or because it is “obvious,” or because Saddam says so; ...) and demanding more and better evidence. But there ought to be an articulatable and reasoned distinction between such wise and helpful skepticism and obsessive and irrational denialism.



Stephen M. Jacoby

Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.

September 14, 2009