As an undergrad, my only required course in my major was Historiography, literally, "about the writing of history".
It can be boiled down to four basic points. (The rest of the course was learning how to track things down.)
1. Everyone has a point of view and speaks from that point of view.
2. Many people also have agendas, and will try to fit facts to them.
3. You can call history a science all you want; that doesn't keep it from being an art. [Altered for journalism: You can call journalism objective all you want; that doesn't protect the reporter from error and bias.]
4. Consider the source, and consider many of them.
This is doubly true of the news we like to hear, because that's the news we are inclined to believe.
Regards--
Mary Anne
Current Events » in reply to i don't disagree...at least not entirely...
Yeah, it *does* make you wonder, doesn't it?
The whole thread (37 posts)
- Media confesses it covered up Saddam's evil
- The New Republic published an article on this topic last October
- It's not just the media...
- Good stuff here.
- JHC! what good is access?
- Seems to me...
- And where has the information we have had about Iraq come from?
- I have my problems with FOX
- But buy staying, they gave Sadam legitimacy he did not deserve.
- Well now we know why the media is Bush's lap dog...
- Making Something Simple Complex
