On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:11:51 +0200, Adam Quirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. Journalism has never been objective for the simple reason that totally objective journalism is fucking boring. The only objective journalism you see is straight fact-stories along the lines of '22 men killed in iraq' and 'lost dog found in park', but even those usually branch out so people will actually read them. The journalist will always choose an angle, and as such he is subjective. - Andreas -- <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the Sweet Life. http://us.click.yahoo.com/A77XvD/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
