Comments on: A journalistic revolution http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/10/31/a-journalistic-revolution/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: rehoneyman http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/10/31/a-journalistic-revolution/#comment-77981 Tue, 05 Nov 2013 20:05:25 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=25560#comment-77981 according to the right, it seems science has a liberal bias. facts consist of whatever supports the movement. according to this catechism, the left is based on lies; everything is political and indeed, facts and science are usually twisted tellings that fit the agenda of the cosmopolitans among us.

to be sure, the far left is equally guilty of similar intellectual dishonesty. but comparing the numbers of the far left to the radical right in america today is like comparing the numbers of whacked out charedi to the number of radical muslims. the former pales in comparison.

given the deep divide in american society and the vitriolic distrust from one side of the chasm to the other, there can be no easy resolution. paul thornton’s wisdom can only be construed as more liberal bias by those who insist that facts are largely subjective in nature. it is little wonder his statement has been drowned in indifference.

]]>
By: jft3 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/10/31/a-journalistic-revolution/#comment-77978 Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:54:11 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=25560#comment-77978 The present day version of “there is no possible way to pull apart fact from fiction or truth from lie…”, shows up in much of the information and emails I receive from conservative friends. In many cases 99% of the information provided is not factual. However, when called on the facts, their response is that since 1% is true, there is no reason to be concerned about correcting the 99% that is not true. My conservative friends have been “foxxilized”, they do not care whether something is factual, as long as, it supports their view.

]]>
By: Newsrocket http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/10/31/a-journalistic-revolution/#comment-77956 Mon, 04 Nov 2013 08:27:13 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=25560#comment-77956 With any story, there is a story line. A beginning, a middle and an end. Any reporter must ground the “development” in a definition of the situation and how “new elements” enter the stage and play out. The final outcome of the interactive dynamic is interpreted through the lens of politics, economics, sociology and with a sense of what’s next. Beyond that is what normally appears in the New Yorker Magazine.

]]>
By: Newsrocket http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/10/31/a-journalistic-revolution/#comment-77955 Mon, 04 Nov 2013 08:22:41 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=25560#comment-77955 A great big duh!

]]>
By: benfct http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/10/31/a-journalistic-revolution/#comment-77941 Sun, 03 Nov 2013 00:32:38 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=25560#comment-77941 Yes, it is an idea from the axial period. And Gabler’s skin-deep analysis of plurality, uncertainty, and democratic temperament is a joke next to Plato’s analysis from 400 B.C. (or so), let alone modern debate on epistemology. Gabler’s an unintended example of the problem, rather than a compass pointing toward any solution.

]]>
By: Eideard http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/10/31/a-journalistic-revolution/#comment-77917 Sat, 02 Nov 2013 04:07:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=25560#comment-77917 Actually this goes back to the origins of sophistry.

]]>
By: Benny27 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/10/31/a-journalistic-revolution/#comment-77906 Fri, 01 Nov 2013 21:27:26 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=25560#comment-77906 @sarkozyrocks,
If not scientifically verifiable truth (or which there are some, not everything of course), then what standard do you propose we follow to know what is true? I say use the best information we can now, which is science!

We have only done science for a few hundred years in total, and it builds on itself. Rarely does the apple cart get overturned in favour of radically new ideas. It happened with Newton, Darwin, Einstein … and not much else. For the newspaper editor, everything might as well be cast in stone, as new discoveries are not going to upset things that affect our lives… but rather obscure facts about the nature of matter, etc that do not matter to most humans, most of the time. If the president lies, we have enough of a grasp of reality (the truth) to say so, and it is science that almost exclusively is the deciding factor in these type of decisions.

]]>
By: Anonymous http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/10/31/a-journalistic-revolution/#comment-77905 Fri, 01 Nov 2013 20:39:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=25560#comment-77905 That goes both ways

]]>
By: sarkozyrocks http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/10/31/a-journalistic-revolution/#comment-77904 Fri, 01 Nov 2013 19:20:11 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=25560#comment-77904 “Get this: An editor at a major American newspaper had the temerity to say that on some issues there is such a thing as scientifically verifiable truth.”

Re: “scientifically verifiable truth”: Every generation of humans seem to believe their scientists are the final end of wisdom and knowledge. Can you imagine how ignorant today’s scientists will appear to scientists 100 years from now? Knowing that we will look like ignorant savages 100 years from now, we should be careful with our labels of “scientific truth”.

Also, I wish the American mainstream media were displaying a “careful balancing act” of objectivity in their reporting. To claim this is laughable. Does anyone other than the author, left or right, really believe this? I think you and I are living on different planets.

]]>
By: rlm328 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/10/31/a-journalistic-revolution/#comment-77897 Fri, 01 Nov 2013 17:18:35 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=25560#comment-77897 This is sophmoric drivel at its best. If you do not agree with me then your facts are automatically wrong. While journalist are an important venue for delivering information, they often get their “facts” wrong. Lets take the example given, do humans have an impact on climate the answer is yes BUT is it a major impact, that is where the debate lies.

Most of the climate change alarmist have a tendency to neglect the data from the Vostok ice core that was taken at the turn of the century in Antarctica. It is interesting as it shows that CO2 is a resultant and not a caustive of global warming. It will also show that the earth’s warming trend we are in now has lasted approximately 5 thousand years longer then any other warming trend in the last 400,000 years.

I come from the school especially that information, especially from goverment sources or from sources that get their funding from the government should be taken be taken with a very large grain of salt. The main starting point for any journalist should be that they are being lied to and dig deep to find the truth, they should do more than follow the herd and cite the same sources that the other journalists are citing.

]]>