Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • by pudge (1) on 2003.08.05 18:25 (#22806) Homepage Journal
    Of course, there is no such thing as pure objectivity. However, that does not mean objectivity should not be a goal. It very much should be. You shouldn't call someone a "noob" in a news story, even if he is a noob.

    Practically speaking, objectivity helps the reporter do a better job. The link is broken, but this weekend George Will detailed [go.com] how a single reporter for the New York times, for many years, has been writing the same story over and over again, that "despite" a drop in crime, the prison population has been increasing. The hypothesis of these "news" articles -- not opinion pieces, not columns -- is that it makes no sense that this should be the case. If he could step outside of himself for a moment, he could possibly see that the crime rate is dropping because of the increase in prison population.

    I dunno ... I have a journalism degree so maybe I think too much about it. Or maybe I am rusty in my thinking, not having gone to class in years. Or maybe I am just a fuddy duddy. But I prefer the no-nonsense approach of NewsHour on PBS -- where even their up/down arrows for the market are not different colors, so as not to try to influence us into thinking up or down is bad! -- to pretty much any other news show around.

    (And no, I see no conflict in that with my previous statement that federal PBS funding is unconstitutional ... I don't have to dislike the show just because I think that, or change my thinking just because I like the show. :-)
    • Please continue to argue with yourself, Pudge. You're doing a bang up job!

      I want the government to foster intelligent discourse. I'm not a laywer, I have no idea what the Consitution means legally (I understand the words, but I don't understand law). I won't hold the Consitution in higher regard than Thomas "Every generation needs a revolution" Jefferson. I do know what sort of society I want to live in and the sort of activities I want my government sponsoring (I think my blog gives some idea what pr

      • I want the government to foster intelligent discourse.

        I want no such thing. That requires my money, and if it is federally funded, it requires violating the Constitution.

        I don't think objectivity in the professional media is possible and perhaps the pursuit of this illusion is worse than admitting it doesn't exist.

        It's necessary, if you want to inform people rather than attempt to sway them. If you think Fox News is right about how news should be reported -- starting from a philosophy and shoehornin