Ain't no ain't in jurnalism.
But...I've noticed over my period of blogging, that there are similarities -- at least, enough to get a few insights about the news.
1.) Assertions take on a life of their own. If unchallenged.... and how often are they challenged?
2.) Background checking is probably pretty rare. The news comes fast and furious, and who has time to check every fact?
3.) Context is generally non- existent, especially with politics. Therefore, very few people's feet are held to the fire. Politicians are such hypocrites because they can get away with it. Make an assertion, assume no one will check it, change your mind later on, assume no one will catch it.
They have to do something outrageous to be investigated; and then the house tumbles down. But you have to almost believe that any politician's house will fall if thoroughly investigated.
Ironically, blogging, because of it's narrower focus, maybe could do the above jobs actually better than the news sites. However, we bloggers need the original material -- the fodder -- from journalists.
I suppose, what the media chooses to cover is probably the biggest barrier to truth.
But it's also in how they present it.
Check out any news article, and it has a slant or -- more kindly -- a point of view. If the overall slant is negative, then look for the statistics that might contradict the slant to be buried in the middle of the article. And if the slant is positive, look in the middle for negative statistics.
Or the emphasis they PUT on which SYLLABLE.
Which reminds me of my high school debating years (never guess I was a debate nerd, right?). One year in high school debate, I remember a statistic that we used as a joke. I mean, it was a serious statistic, but by putting the right spin on it, we could use it for both sides of the debate.
Something like. "Such a serious issue needs a healthy consensus, and a full 40% of the public SIMPLY WILL NOT ACCEPT this proposal."
On the other side, we might say something like, "60% of the public is in favor of this proposal."
In both cases, the stat was tossed out there, and the listener came away with was the negative or positive tone. (It was better than the above example, but you get the idea...)
Many blogs are becoming journalism, because they dig out their own information.
But most of the rest of us would have to be considered 'jurnalism'.
But...I've noticed over my period of blogging, that there are similarities -- at least, enough to get a few insights about the news.
1.) Assertions take on a life of their own. If unchallenged.... and how often are they challenged?
2.) Background checking is probably pretty rare. The news comes fast and furious, and who has time to check every fact?
3.) Context is generally non- existent, especially with politics. Therefore, very few people's feet are held to the fire. Politicians are such hypocrites because they can get away with it. Make an assertion, assume no one will check it, change your mind later on, assume no one will catch it.
They have to do something outrageous to be investigated; and then the house tumbles down. But you have to almost believe that any politician's house will fall if thoroughly investigated.
Ironically, blogging, because of it's narrower focus, maybe could do the above jobs actually better than the news sites. However, we bloggers need the original material -- the fodder -- from journalists.
I suppose, what the media chooses to cover is probably the biggest barrier to truth.
But it's also in how they present it.
Check out any news article, and it has a slant or -- more kindly -- a point of view. If the overall slant is negative, then look for the statistics that might contradict the slant to be buried in the middle of the article. And if the slant is positive, look in the middle for negative statistics.
Or the emphasis they PUT on which SYLLABLE.
Which reminds me of my high school debating years (never guess I was a debate nerd, right?). One year in high school debate, I remember a statistic that we used as a joke. I mean, it was a serious statistic, but by putting the right spin on it, we could use it for both sides of the debate.
Something like. "Such a serious issue needs a healthy consensus, and a full 40% of the public SIMPLY WILL NOT ACCEPT this proposal."
On the other side, we might say something like, "60% of the public is in favor of this proposal."
In both cases, the stat was tossed out there, and the listener came away with was the negative or positive tone. (It was better than the above example, but you get the idea...)
Many blogs are becoming journalism, because they dig out their own information.
But most of the rest of us would have to be considered 'jurnalism'.