>Objectivity is rarely attained by anyone, even a journalist who is
>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]
