Fourth Estate

[Lectro]

Thucydides...first among historians... querried on the factuality of his entries he replied "this is not what great Caesar said, but rather, what he ought to have said."

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

Thucydides...first among historians... querried on the factuality of his entries he replied "this is not what great Caesar said, but rather, what he ought to have said."

Well played, given that Thucydides lived a couple centuries before Caesar.

 

[Lectro]

you mean every source has a bias no matter if they are making a good faith effort to be impartial!? i didn't know this! tell me more....

Sounds like David Byrne singing "Cross-eyed and Painless"

"Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts dont do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them...."

 

[Lectro]

Well played, given that Thucydides lived a couple centuries before Caesar.

Hahahaha...that was slick. My memory is shot...must remember to "google all facts!"

I am assuming that my sepia draped memory hole was attempting to conjure the Roman historian... Tacitus.

Of course, I'm very likely just making that shit up on the fly as well.... Its a New Year but some things never change.

 

[sailordeac]

you mean every source has a bias no matter if they are making a good faith effort to be impartial!? i didn't know this! tell me more....

Read the thread, including your own post.

 

[dmcheatw]

Well played, given that Thucydides lived a couple centuries before Caesar.

and he wasn't first among historians, either

Read the thread, including your own post.

i re-read the thread. first of all was your post about who picks the facts directed at me? i took it to be because it followed mine. i was just pointing out that anyone with an education in the humanities is quite aware of that. if there is something else i'm suppose to see, i don't get it. if the thing i don't see has something to do with current events; i admit ignorance of current events.

i just didn't like the OP painting a negative picture of all journalists with his overly-large brush.

this is not @ you--unless you're a gun nut--but to the gun nuts: you wanna know what really keeps the govt. in line? it ain't your pea-shooters. it's ink pens and color photos, tape recorders and cameras. the first amendment is what protects americans, not a misapplication of the second.

 

[TheTwinAndreBen]

When I took Journalism at WF a little over a decade ago, I asked a classmate who was serious and wanted to pursue a career in journalism a simple question: "so what do you want to do with your journalism degree? " She said, "I want to change the world." Factual, responsible journalism didn't even register. Scariest moment of my life, and I've been attacked by knives and had a gun pulled on me. What it meant to me was, "I lack the talent to actually become a leader, so I'll join forces with other like-minded people to tell a story that I like."

It's happening now and I feel sick about it, and I'm not a republican.

 

[sailordeac]

No dm it was not directed at you. It was just coincidence that my post came after yours. And you are right, I was pointing out the obvious because the discussion was about something called "factual journalism," and I found that to be a more than misleading concept. Yes, you can try to be even handed in many things but reporting in the press is seldom such an area. There are a number of reasons for this, some of which include:

1. In the press accuracy, balance and critical analysis are often sacrificed to satisfy speed.

2. A media outlet develops and audience, which has its own prejudices and prefers that these prejudices be satisfied. Otherwise, it may go to where its prejudices are confirmed.

3. Analysis often takes too long and involves more thinking than either the writer or the reader are willing to invest.

4. Since the top priority is speed, accuracy, depth and balance are secondary.

5. Most of the time the media prefers prompt product instead of thoughtful analysis. And, I guess, many of us do too.

Feel free to add other reasons. However, the reality is that in the media spin and speed dominate all else most of the time. Factual reporting is an illusion. The best thing you can do is use many sources and weigh them critically, if you want to take the time and trouble. I also think that being a little philosophical and trying to take a long term view will help you find a way through the spin and clutter.

 

[Ball State Deac]

pics?

 

[dmcheatw]

@ sailor. i see your point. just to be clear, investigative journalism isn't about speed, and it is about accuracy and critical analysis. they also have more time to balance perspectives, and the analysis may well be worth the readers time depending on what the journalist is investigating. now obviously investigative journalists are biased, and so are the editors and owners of their organization, but i don't know if the principals you listed (which do apply to most types of journalism i agree) are fair to people who are diligently working to expose corruption, bloat, and injustice and hold those responsible for such things accountable, for the net benefit of society.

but yeah i don't disagree with what you're saying otherwise. i mean there's 24 hours in a day, and nobody is omnipresent so it's fair to say that the dimension time automatically forces some sort of bias on any source, because they must choose what makes the hour long news that night and what doesn't. or in the investigative context, what they decide to investigate reflects their own biases.