I thought the article was more balanced than most on this subject. It did cover criticisms made by both HR and those characterised as ripperologists. I did of course notice the difference in tone and language in examining the issues as they relate to HR and her work and how it discussed some of the issues relating to ripperology. I think the language used did demonstrate a predetermined bias of support for HRs approach and her version of the truth on the subject.
That said, it did not shy away from high-lighting the weaknesses in HR's work, even if it tried to also defend her work from those very weaknesses under the guise of academic licence.
I did have a couple of moments of annoyance at the way the debate, HR's work and we were characterised. And the quoting of Sam Flynn and rjpalmer was unnecessary and inappropriate in an article written in a way to suggest it was a balanced academic treatment of the debate.
I do think HR raises some interesting questions, despite agreeing with some of the criticism of the way she does that.
That said, it did not shy away from high-lighting the weaknesses in HR's work, even if it tried to also defend her work from those very weaknesses under the guise of academic licence.
I did have a couple of moments of annoyance at the way the debate, HR's work and we were characterised. And the quoting of Sam Flynn and rjpalmer was unnecessary and inappropriate in an article written in a way to suggest it was a balanced academic treatment of the debate.
I do think HR raises some interesting questions, despite agreeing with some of the criticism of the way she does that.
Comment