In Writing 102 class, a first year, mandatory class for college freshmen, we learned how to read a news article and evaluate it for factual content, bias, and logical reasoning.
Do any other people who went to college remember taking a class like that?
Let's evaluate this Daily Beast article for content and logic.
First of all, out of all the words in a 19 minute speech, they actual only quote 6 small snippets (13 words is the longest unbroken quote), a total of 40 words (out of 1930 words) and inserted their own words in between to tell you what he said. So they don't actually show you what he said in any reasonable context.
Even from those 6 quotes I can see that he dropped buzz words and played to the crowd by using simplistic generalizations about Christian nations and Muslim nations. But because this article only shows me 6 small quotes that have those buzz words and generalizations in them, it may be an impression that this article gives.
This article does not give me enough actual quotes from the speech for me to know what he actually said. Did he really say that all Muslims are in a "war against Christianity"? The article says that he did, and goes on to say that would be as racist as "setting forth a litany of crimes committed by African-Americans in the US as defining that race".
Rand has made many mistakes, I don't believe that he is infallible, nor do I think that he's the best Senator currently in Congress (Mike Lee's voting record may be a bit better than Rand's, but I don't worship Mike Lee either). But please, cite Rand's actual speech, not some article that barely even quotes the speech while telling us what the whole speech was about.
Here is a much longer quote of the speech (it seems to be the entire speech), for us to see what the Daily Beast writer left out of his article:
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: