KWILCOX@AUVM.BITNET (ken wilcox) (02/08/90)
On Sat, 3 Feb 90 12:50:00 CST <UCC_PEM@SHSU> said: >>I believe also it is a journalists duty to check up on facts to >>see if they are truthful. When Bush says he knows nothing (That >>was terminal in Ronnie!) is a fact in him saying it. However, it >>is also a fact if the President is not being truthful in his statements. >>I believe a problem with reporters is that they have not been willing >>to question statements of people. It is easier to take people's statements >>at face value than check up on them >> >>Ken Wilcox > >Careful!! There is a difference between reporting the facts and editorializing >them. The fact that he said it is news, the fact, assuming that you can prove >it, that he lied in saying it is news, BUT, reporting that you THINK he is >lying is editorializing. I would have just the facts and make my own decision >on what I THINK IS THE TRUTH. I despise the editorializing on TV that follows >ANY political happening, speech or whatever. If it is on TV you will get a >dozen people telling you what they thought he meant. I like to chew my own >food, thank you. The point I am getting at is the danger of journalists being coopted into the political system by relying on the words of politicians only. It is a credibility question of the reporter and what is reported. My experience is newspapers is the op/ed section. True that is where the TRUTH is discussed. However, a statement that is misleading or wrong by a politician is a fact, untruthful fact. I prefer too have truthful facts to make judgements on TRUTH. Ken Wilcox Chew chew munch munch... > >Paul E. Mason
UCC_PEM@SHSU.BITNET (02/08/90)
>The point I am getting at is the danger of journalists being coopted into >the political system by relying on the words of politicians only. It >is a credibility question of the reporter and what is reported. >My experience is newspapers is the op/ed section. True that is where >the TRUTH is discussed. However, a statement that is misleading or >wrong by a politician is a fact, untruthful fact. I prefer too have >truthful facts to make judgements on TRUTH. > >Ken Wilcox >Chew chew munch munch... Are you familiar with bolean algebra? Being a programmer I am rather intimate with it (the only thing I've been intimate with in a long time ;-) ). A -> B == A implies B A <-> B == A implies B and B implies A ~ == not (the mailers may change this...it is a tilde) fact <-> truth This is simple. If 2 politicians (I will use my children's names to avoid ruffling anyone's feathers) make statements, Robert says A and Paula says B and A <-> ~B (in other words they are mutually exclusive). The first proposition is that "Robert said B", call this Z. The second proposition is "Paula said B", call this Y. Z is true. Y is true. They DID make those statements, and the fact that they made those statements is news. However, Robert said B and Paula said A, and, A or B MUST be false then the contradiction is a fact and thereby news. In the above example, a reporter would (should) be compelled to report both statements and let the reader see the contradiction for himself and decide which he would prefer to believe. In addition, he may support one or attack the other with other facts to help point out which one is true. A reporter has much leeway in pursuing this. Using some facts and not others a good reporter can make Hitler sound like Jesus Christ (I proved this in an English class, by the way). Reporting requires a lot of personal integrity and a sense of duty to stick to the facts. Today's reporting has, largely, strayed from that basic idea to sensationalism and "scooping" the other guy at all costs. One of the most glaring examples are those rags you buy at grocery stores, like the Star and The Enquirerer. Paul E. Mason
34LMLFQ@CMUVM.BITNET (Chris Curtis) (02/09/90)
>A reporter has much leeway in pursuing this. Using some facts and not others a >good reporter can make Hitler sound like Jesus Christ (I proved this in an >English class, by the way). Reporting requires a lot of personal integrity and >a sense of duty to stick to the facts. Today's reporting has, largely, strayed >from that basic idea to sensationalism and "scooping" the other guy at all >costs. One of the most glaring examples are those rags you buy at grocery >stores, like the Star and The Enquirerer. >Paul E. Mason Paul, Are you talking about reporting or propaganda? I agree that a skillful *manipulation* of the facts can make almost anybody sound incredible - I mean they did it with Nixon, and the Germans with Hitler (at first). I also agree that most of today's reporting has "strayed... to sensastionalism" but didn't it get that way because nobody has the inclination to dig for the "true" facts? I mean, if my sister said "Chris hit me", and I said "No, I didn't" when in fact I did, doesn't the reporter have a duty or responsibility to report both statements *and* the truth - that I hit her? If the reporter reports only my "facts" - that I'm as innocent as a saint ;-), the reporter is essentially reporting a lie. I believe this ties in to the whole reason why the "Facts" debate started... The press only reported Bush's statements, and not the factual truth behind these statements (for or against). The merely took the statements at face value. This is wrong. (Forgive me if I'm beating a dead horse on this, or the debate started on some other points - I was off the list when it started) This type of reporting is merely propaganda for whoever makes a statement. --Chris "My name's Joe Friday. Sometimes I wear a badge... sometimes I wear clothes"