--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup"
> 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
> > but
> > direct quotes from witnesses, or a story that follows the reporter
> > 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
> and 'lost dog found in park', but even those usually branch out so
> will actually read them.
> The journalist will always choose an angle, and as such he is
> - Andreas
> -- 
> <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ >
> Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.

I don't see why an "angle" isn't a objective element.  It's an
objective truth of one's values, sensibilities and perspective gained
from living.  It just needs to be understood as what it is -- a
individual system of values applied to an event.  That a person has
specific values is no less a true fact than a dog found in a park.

  -- Enric

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Most low income households are not online. Help bridge the digital divide today!

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to