I thought objectivity was the significant factor in professional
journalism (getting mulitple sources, corraboration, etc.)
Depends on what kind of journalism you're talking about. Hunter Thompson started including himself in the accounts of events he was covering and invented a form of journalism that many people thought was much more honest than traditional "objective" journalism.
I tend to think that the most objective any one person can be is a subjective matter, and that no matter how much distance you try to stick between the reporter and the story, little pieces of the reporter will always fall into the story.
So which form is more legitimate? A story on the BBC that uses nothing but direct quotes from witnesses, or a story that follows the reporter as he/she tries to dig up the facts.
I don't know. I really don't know much about journalism aside from what I've read in books. I just know when my bullshit filters go off, I start reading something else. And they have been going off like crazy the past few years here in America.
--
_____ Quirk
_____ Bullemhead.com
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
