We can’t possibly allow this! by @Dai_James1942

  1. Significant suppression of information: Below this paragraph is the full version of the Bloody Sunday incident we just considered. In this fuller extract I have italicised ‘do just about the only thing they were legally allowed to do, which was’ in Version 2. It does not appear in Version 1 (I’ve put […] for your benefit). It would be somewhat damaging to the aims of the Czarist author of Version 1 to acknowledge the parlous state of civil liberties in Russia at the time, so he simply omits it. The same is true of the words ‘panicked and’ which are also italicised in Version 2 and do not appear in Version 1. The words ‘Their Little Father’ have been omitted from Version 2 because they suggest a kindly paternal stance by the Czar which sits uneasily with the picture which Version 2 is painting of the negligent head of a brutal system. We are in a special case of ‘bias’:
  • On Jan. 22nd 1905, 150,000 people gathered in front of the Tsar’s palace to […] present a petition to their ‘Little Father’ the Tsar, asking him to do something for them. They were a sullen mob. The Tsar was not at home, and the Chief of Police ordered his soldiers to drive the rioters back with their swords: 96 of the protestors were killed and 300 wounded
  • On Jan. 22nd 1905, 150,000 people gathered in front of the Czar’s palace to do just about the only thing they were legally allowed to do, which was present a petition to […] the Czar, asking him to do something for them. They were dignified and well organised. The Czar was not at home, and the Chief of Police panicked and ordered his soldiers to drive fire on the crowd: 4,000 of the protestors were killed and 333 wounded

In the list of Recall Items in Figure 1 above, the second item (“The Germans, (significant omission) / who had brought Lenin to Russia”) means that Version 1 omitted ‘who had brought Lenin to Russia’: and the pair, faced with Version 2’s additional ‘who had brought Lenin to Russia’ are expected both to supply from memory that that was indeed the case, and to see that the dangerous smear of being a German stooge has been predictably and significantly omitted from the Bolshevik version. They would be expected to add ‘who had bought &c’ to the margin of V2 and add ‘sig. omission’. The reading ability to identify ‘significant omissions’ between ‘raw’ texts is only to be expected of the most able learners, and by using this readability controlled method I have greatly increased the range of those who can see the trick[15]. The admission by Version 1 that 96 people were killed is very good evidence that AT LEAST that number were killed, one of the ‘rules of evidence’ being that a damaging admission conceded by a writer is strong evidence.

Continues on next page…

You need to or Register to bookmark/favorite this content.

About UKEdChat Editorial 3154 Articles
The Editorial Account of UKEdChat, managed by editor-in-chief Colin Hill, with support from Martin Burrett from the UKEd Magazine. Pedagogy, Resources, Community.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*