On 09/05/2010 04:55 PM, Clark Morris wrote: > On 5 Sep 2010 14:17:23 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: > >> On 09/05/2010 02:25 PM, Phil Smith III wrote: >>> Rick Fochtman wrote: >>>> I'll give you another oxymoron: journalistic integrity >>>> Today, it's becoming rarer and rarer and I suspect will die out completely >>>> in our lifetimes. :-( >>> >>> Now, now. Lumping all journalists in one boat is as unfair as putting all >>> computers into the same category. >>> >>> Some of us go to a fair amount of trouble to verify everything we write >>> about. >>> >>> Having said that, I'll agree that *every* mainstream news story of which >>> I've ever had first-hand knowledge got several significant and important >>> facts wrong, such as names, ages, and confusing an employment address with >>> a home address. Whether that's incompetence or just the rush to publish is >>> unclear. None of them were malicious -- none of them improved (or hurt) the >>> story for anyone who didn't already know those facts -- but it does speak >>> to a certain lack of verification. >>> >>> ...phsiii >>> >> >> I suspect the original sentiment was prompted by so many on cable "news" >> and talk shows that like to classify themselves as "journalists" when >> all they do is report the latest rumour without analysis as to validity, >> or referee opposing speakers as if all sides of an argument have equal >> validity. Not that infrequently these days, one side of an argument is >> just flat-out wrong and should be reported that way. >> >> A real journalist would not allow a guest speaker to build an argument >>from "facts" that are really falsehoods (lies) without immediately >> calling him to task - but that of course requires the journalist to have >> done his homework and know more than the person being interviewed - a >> rare quality now days. People who are notorious for promoting >> demonstrable falsehoods should not be given free air time merely for the >> entertainment value, because there are unfortunately at least 20% of the >> population that will believe anything they hear on the air, no matter >> how ridiculous. > > As someone who was in a field where you can't get a consensus on > whether JES2 is better than JES3 and who is a follower of > transportation issues (and a member of Transport Action Atlantic), I > doubt a reporter would be able to determine easily which side of an > argument is flat out wrong, even with some hours of research. > > Clark Morris
"JES2 or JES3 better" is a "subjective" and a "it depends" question. People are entitled to their own opinions. Some of the political garbage out there would be a closer analogy to someone saying JES3 will be unsupported after z/OS 1.12 - something that is easily demonstrated to be false. Equally ridiculous statements are made daily on talk radio and talk TV without challenge. People are not entitled to their own facts! -- Joel C. Ewing, Fort Smith, AR [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
