More DebatesMark, thinks that somehow the phrase “respectfully demand” in the letter muller signed justifies conclusions like this one:
the Committee demands additional media resources to offer proper criticism to what it perceives as wrong views. Instead of allowing free, private parties to select views in the marketplace and engage in debate, the Committee wants to determine proper views for us. They seek to impose a regime of pre-selection. We wouldn't (or shouldn't) allow the State to do this, so why should we allow other self-appointed authority figures?(emphasis mine)
My response is this:
Let's try a hypothetical (taken partially from my experience):
I used to work for a construction company. We had a carpenter working who was truly a gifted craftsman. He had spent years perfecting his craft, and did beautiful work. In short he was a woodworking expert.
Now let's suppose a local TV station invited the purveyors of some shoddy work on to TV to demonstrate their products. They make mantelpieces. Their method is more or less to glue some pre-fabricated crap onto the wall, not bothering to check to make sure it fits properly. Consequently they are much cheaper. But not only are they cheaper, they claim to be just as good as carpenters. They are, of course, wrong. Let’s say the TV personality closes like this:
Announcer: So, the lesson here is that there is no point in doing a custom job, when we can get something as good for half the price.
Shyster: That’s right!
Now, imagine this particular carpenter is angry. The claim is untrue, and obviously untrue. So he gets together with some friends and forms an organization called “Carpenters for Justice” and they send a letter to the station that includes these lines:
It is irresponsible of your producers to permit Shyster’s biased presentation of events to go unchallenged as factual. We therefore respectfully demand that you formally apologize to the carpenters who have been slandered by Shyster's reckless presentation and invite a reputable carpenter to present a more even-handed view of the evidence.
Are they demanding a “criticism regime,” with respect to carpentry?
And don’t forget, these guys are in a union with political power. They are also armed with many sharp tools. That is probably more threatening than historians.