On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:56:32 -0500, Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > frank, i agree with you 99%, wxcept this part, which i find a bit strange > (strange that someone has this kind of expectations of the second oldest > profession) This is my part, to which Mishka refers: > > On the other hand, if I pick up a newspaper, I expect that what's > > being reported should be grounded in facts, and represent that which > > the reporter believes to be true, accurate, and based on an objective > > reality. >
Mishka: I wrote the paragraph to which you refer very carefully. I attempted to write it in such a way that every word had meaning, and was meaningful. So, I did "fudge" things a bit. I said that a report should be ~grounded~ in facts, that a reporter should present that which he ~believes~ to be true, and that what's being reported should be ~based~ on an objective reality. Each of those key words gives a lot of wiggle room. I know that every journalist and editor (and publisher, for that matter) has their personal bias and agenda. If they're good at what they do, they try to suppress those things to present as fair and objective report as possible. But even the best efforts will sometimes fall short. So, I guess that what I expect is not 100% accuracy, but rather an honest attempt to be fair and objective. Some attain this, most don't. I recognize that. Thanks for your comment, though. Interesting thread. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
