conciously striving for it.
Furthermore it can be perverted. If the president made a speech tomorrow
that said that Canada was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction I think
Fox would report it deadpan:
"President Bush today nnounced that British intelligence has learned that
the Canadians are srockpiling weapons of mass destruction." Neither their
format not their temperament would lead them to go further. At best this
reporting style is straight out of Journalism 101, where the director of
economic development is presumed to be an authoritative source on the
effects of the county budget, a congressman is presumed to be speaking
truth when he says what the bill he is introducing will do, etc. But this
made them prey if not willing patsies for corrupt government officials.
(let's say there are some; I don't think you believe this yet, but humor
me) Journalism has now taken a statement made to a roomful of people and
made it global ok and by the way sold a lot of newspapers. This type of
journalist covers the facts but not the story.
NPR would be more likely to say huh? Canada? we must be talking about
Labatt's bottles, and to look into it. To be fair, their format allows them
a more detailed examination of the stories they cover. But beyond that I
think that they do at least try harder to present the truth as they see it.
They are of the interpretive school of journalism that would report the
above story so:
"President Bush's surprising assertion earlier today that Canada is
stockpiling WMD is possibly due due to the breakbown earlier this week of
trade talks between the two countries, speculates Professor Blabla WoofWoof
of the thisnthant Institute for Policy Studies. He is here with us today in
the studio. Professor, why do you say that..."
ëtc
The latter is arguably less objective but is also less uncritical and so
may come closer to the truth.
MY deep thought for the day. I am outta here.
Dana
Kevin Schmidt writes:
> Of course it's not, for you. Because you know the answer is no.
>
> >At 10:44 AM 10/17/2003, you wrote:
> >>I knew it Larry. You wouldn't be able to answer a simple yes or no
> >>question. So i'll try again. Do you think NPR presents an unbiased view
> >>of the news? Yes or No, it's a pretty easy question.
> >
> >Its simply not worth replying to your sort of screedn.
> >
> >
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
