Too much stuff in here...of which i have only lukewarm opinions on......but.........
> > We can get pretty meta-physical here, but I would disagee. For > example, a century ago Einstein proved that if there are no markers > from which to measure, if 2 astronauts are converging it's impossible > to say is one or both are in motion. > > That is, the truth is relative which means it's possible for there to > be 2 truths and therefore no truths. I understand this. It goes beyond the scope of this discussion though....but I think we agree on this point anyway, actually > > As explained above, when we're talking about policy there's no truth! > For example, will the President's SS reform plan work or fail? What's > the truth there? There isn't any which is why it's the press's job to > explain why the President is wrong and his job to explain why he's > right. > > If we're talking about "facts" you can't handle the facts, you don't > have the time. So the question is which facts do we report about: the > school building or the gathering insurgants? > When we are talking "policy", absolutely. When we are talking something concrete, there is a "truth" (in so much as the truth exists, see above :) Any bias can then be applied to that truth, the "spin". Example: Truth: "Bush's SS reform plan will institute A, B, and C". Bias: "The result of A, B, and C will be a total destruction of the SS system, causing massive flooding as well as pigeon overpopulation" The latter can be called "analysis". Perhaps we simply disagree here in that, where you want your media to report the facts, then analyze it, i simply want the facts. Let me analyze it. > > Yes. By saying they are "fair and balanced" by which they mean, "we > support Bush" they are an agent of the federal government. Oh that's a stretch! Caveat: I know, you know, everyone knows, that Fox is sympathetic to the right and this administration. I'm simply arguing that they haven't ADMITTED to that. > > Which is exactly why the press should only report on why the > government is wrong. That way they're always on the right side - the > people's. You want the press approaching all stories with an instant bias against the government. I'm fine with that. However, what if the media investigation bears out that the government is RIGHT? Throw out the report? Approach skeptically, investigate objectively, report truthfully. > > That's bad analysis. Good analysis can be seen on The News Hour every > night or heard on NPR. Good analysis is when you invite numerous > experts in their fields to criticize a policy proposal. When you bring in experts who give their "analysis" on what the reported facts will result in......thats not news. It may be good analysis, and I may find it very useful in forming my own opinions, but this analysis is separate from the facts. This separation is obvious in that analysis need not be fact, whereas news should be fact. > > Really? Then how is it that 70% of the American public once thought > Iraq had WMD when not a single fact to support argument was put > forward? > Yeah, if I recall, all the "facts" used to make this argument amounted to nothing more than weak, circumstantial evidence. When hard proof was asked for, the government just winked and said "trust us, we have it". If that was all BS, then this was propaganda. Nothing more. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| All-in-one: antivirus, antispam, firewall for your PC and PDA. Buy Trend Micro PC-cillin Internet Security http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=60 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:150258 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
