![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Apologies, and a rant.
Sorry if any of you had to see the reposting of something you've already seen, but in the course of trying to backdate some things the LJ did some odd stuff (like refusing to admit that 1: it had actually done so, and 2: then erasing the wrong post, when I tried to correct failing to backdate one of the entries) and so I had to accept losing the post, or reposting it.
Now to the meat of the matter.
Last weekend I was at a convention, where I was in a panel discussion on the relative merits of openness, and restriction of information flow. Much was said and I realised that one of the more insidious things in the media culture we have is the concept of "fairness" and of "balance".
Many years ago I trained as a journalist, and we were taught to be objective, which is not the same as fair.
If there is an opposing viewpoint on a matter of policy, they need to be heard, but that doesn't mean all views deserve the same airing, in some cases it means they don't deserve an airing at all (the BBC is fighting this battle, trying to decide at what level the ridiculous lose the right to be heard, here is seems we have yet to formulate the question, publicly,).
Example: If I'm writing a piece on satellite, communication, I can state the, objective, fact that satellites go around the earth. It isn't required that I go and find a Flat-Earther to give me the "balancing" opinion that the world is not actually round.
Where this gets muddy is in matters of policy, and esp. where people espousing a matter of policy start to use words of belief.
When the President says of a plan, "I believe this will be an unmitigated good," he is probably speaking the truth. He may also be flat wrong.
It is that disconnect which leads to the problem, no one seems able to say that the emperor has no clothes, because stating the objective facts, unadorned, wouldn't be fair. It certainly doesn't help when the people in the wrong are possessed of a bully pulpit, so the only solution I can offer is the same one I tossed out at the end of my panel;
We need to teach people so they can look at the facts, and weigh the evidence, see to it that they can see the rhetorical tricks being used to mask errors, shift debate and hide the issues.
Then we have the informed electorate, famed of song and story.
Now to the meat of the matter.
Last weekend I was at a convention, where I was in a panel discussion on the relative merits of openness, and restriction of information flow. Much was said and I realised that one of the more insidious things in the media culture we have is the concept of "fairness" and of "balance".
Many years ago I trained as a journalist, and we were taught to be objective, which is not the same as fair.
If there is an opposing viewpoint on a matter of policy, they need to be heard, but that doesn't mean all views deserve the same airing, in some cases it means they don't deserve an airing at all (the BBC is fighting this battle, trying to decide at what level the ridiculous lose the right to be heard, here is seems we have yet to formulate the question, publicly,).
Example: If I'm writing a piece on satellite, communication, I can state the, objective, fact that satellites go around the earth. It isn't required that I go and find a Flat-Earther to give me the "balancing" opinion that the world is not actually round.
Where this gets muddy is in matters of policy, and esp. where people espousing a matter of policy start to use words of belief.
When the President says of a plan, "I believe this will be an unmitigated good," he is probably speaking the truth. He may also be flat wrong.
It is that disconnect which leads to the problem, no one seems able to say that the emperor has no clothes, because stating the objective facts, unadorned, wouldn't be fair. It certainly doesn't help when the people in the wrong are possessed of a bully pulpit, so the only solution I can offer is the same one I tossed out at the end of my panel;
We need to teach people so they can look at the facts, and weigh the evidence, see to it that they can see the rhetorical tricks being used to mask errors, shift debate and hide the issues.
Then we have the informed electorate, famed of song and story.
politics and journalism.
no subject
Then we have the informed electorate, famed of song and story.**
The problem is that most folx don't *want* to be taught. It's too umcomfortable.