Re: [Swprograms] CPB meddling

[Richard Cuff <rdcuff@xxxxxxxxx>]

However, if you look at most news reporting, the facts themselves
comprise maybe 10-20% of a news "story".

Consider the Kitty Genovese story in NYC in 1964
(http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/kitty_genovese/1.html
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese).  What made that name
initially memorable was the vast difference in how the story was
initially reported in the NY Times (maybe a paragraph) vs. (IIRC) the
NY Daily News (brutal murder, screams ignored, etc.).

There have also been highly publicized examples of fabricated
witnesses and victims, that have been fanciful composites created by
journalists to prove their point.

Most news media have been guilty of taking their hypotheses and using
selective examples / interviews / profiles to prove their point.

Now let's bake in the religoius right into the discussion.

Take, for example, the Biblical story of Jesus and the lost sheep.  He
has a flock that are all hunky-dory and one sheep that is lost.  He
abandons the majority to go rescue the one outlier.  Extend that
thinking to Terry Schiavo.  Yes, the majority of people in her
condition have no hope and should be left to die.  However, there
*have* been a few examples of people recovering from similar states. 
If one rigorously applies the "lost sheep" metaphor, then every effort
should have been made to prolong Schiavo's life.

Using this logic, one doesn't necessarily need a majority of anything
-- or even a rigorous scientific discourse -- to establish a course of
behavior.  It is a different discipline.

It could also be argued that "affirmative action" is similar,
conceptually, because accommodations are made that enable preferential
treatment of a minority.

If you haven't yet hit the delete key on this thread, I am not
advocating changes in how NPR / PBS are treated -- I would much rather
keep Congress out of the process.  Ditto the VOA.

I used the examples I used to highlight an alternative way of thinking
that might help to explain *why* some believe there's a bias --
because, by using a different value set, there is.  To some, beliefs
are more important than facts.

If all we listened to were facts, we'd hear all about copper wire
production in Albania.

Off to work...

Richard Cuff / Allentown, PA

On 5/4/05, John Figliozzi <jfiglio1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> Facts can be damned inconvenient for those with an axe to grind. Facts
> are truths.  They speak for themselves.  They can't be massaged as in
> edited, analyzed or reported in some way to make them something they're
> not UNLESS someone practices misrepresentation in some form.  At that
> point, they cease to become facts or the truth.  It's simple logic
> theory.  If I combine a truth with a falsehood, the whole statement
> becomes false.  If I report that which only supports my preconceptions
> and ignore that which does not, I am no longer being factual or
> truthful.  I may be practicing the art of debating; but if I choose to
> ignore an inconvenient fact, my whole argument collapses as a building
> would if its foundation is eroded.
>

_______________________________________________
Swprograms mailing list
Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms

To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.