I guess my point about the lazy journalism comes from the thread I started talking about the stupid (IMHO) questions reporters were asking during a scrum about the Air France plane crash...
I think that it is dishonest for a reporter to "Walk a mile" and then write the story as if they were a bloody expert, they invented walking...
I think stories are metaphorically like icebergs, where a casual observer sees the 10% on the surface. If a reporter borrows a set of goggles and looks under the water and says "Holy shit, there is a lot more under the surface" then are we to think that the reporter knows every square foot of ice? No, they just looked under the water. What if the most important part was not visible?
Aw shit. I hate metaphors for this reason. I have confused the matter even further.
You guys know what I am trying to say. I think the main thought through these replies is that it is okay, as long as the reporter approaches the subject with good intentions and the right frame of mind, and not like some carnival freak show.
__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.
|