Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
If bush comes out and says "the sky is purple" you'll see that on the evening news. But you will NOT see a reporter saying "He said the sky is purple, but he's lost it because the sky is blue, here I'll prove it to you." Now in that case the journalist would NOT be displaying a bias. He'd be informing the public that Bush is not telling them the truth.
|
Can you try and not engage in bush bashing for just one thread!
J/K
lol, anyway, I'm divided on whether journalists should do this. I used to get upset when they didn't report that a contradiction between the claim and the reality existed, but then I came to realize that perhaps it's the reader's responsibility to come to a conclusion--even if it's wrong.
And I coupled that thought with the notion that objective truth (and reporting--see my sig) isn't what we'd like it to be; that is, rather than disputing whether it exists, I am at least comfortable acknowledging that one isn't likely to be accurately relaying objective Truth due to language, perspective, inclination, & etc.
So where does that leave me: I had to try and reconcile these thoughts with, and I share your view on this I think, what I considered to be irresponsible journalism. That they actually have an obligation to relay the facts as we know them. At least, they should remind the audience that such facts contradict such and such or whether there's a lack of evidence for the assertion. By relaying an inaccurate assertion as if it were truthful and accurate, the journalist gives credence to the statement and, in my mind, such complacency means they then share responsibility...
...so the example I came to think would work within these contraints would be, bush says the sky is purple.
However, evidence points to the fact that it is actually blue, we've always held this to be the case, and we invite you to go look for yourself...[maybe even throw in a hearty "it's this reporters professional opinion that bush is lying" (or mistaken, as the case may be)].