40 ms·

As Camus said: "le goût de la vérité n'empêche pas la prise de parti" - (the taste for truth does not stop you from having an opinion). I don't understand why t

by namdnay 13y ago

As Camus said: "le goût de la vérité n'empêche pas la prise de parti" - (the taste for truth does not stop you from having an opinion). I don't understand why this is supposed to be so controversial: newspapers have had opinions for centuries!

walshemj 13y ago
Yes you write the story to suit the papers owners political leanings - even the Guardian bashes the BBC (the parent company owns a few low quality commercial radio stations). Let alone what Murdoch and the DMG et all get up to
peteretep 13y ago
Presentation of opinion as fact, and selection of a set of facts that support your opinion, with an accompanying omission of those that don't, is controversial.
- RyanMcGreal 13y ago
  Selecting facts and presenting opinions while pretending not to have them is worse.
- namdnay 13y ago
  That's why you need the "taste for truth". It's not controversial in the business world: I am perfectly capable of giving an unbiased presentation of the pros and cons of Git over Mercurial, even though I personally prefer the latter.
mehwoot 13y ago
I don't understand why this is supposed to be so controversial Because humans in general have an extreme bias towards believing things they want to believe and not believing things they don't. It is very rare to find someone who truly reports things neutrally and even rarer in a situation where stringent neutrality is not fostered. I guess other people are free to read whatever they want, but I very rarely read opinion pieces or news from people who I know are firmly on one side or another. They are not usually honestly investigating the facts and more likely trying to sway people to their position. Whilst that is understandable as they are human, and they are not necessarily incorrect, it is not what I want from my news.
- vidarh 13y ago
  Everyone writes with a bias. The difference is whether or not they are honest and open about what their biases are. I would much rather read pieces by a reporter like Greenwald that makes it clear where he stands, than a journalist that pretends - maybe even to himself/herself - that there is an objective truth they can report.
  - untog 13y ago
    Everyone writes with a bias. The difference is whether or not they are honest and open about what their biases are. No, the difference is whether or not the approach their writing aware of, and compensating for, their biases.
  - justin66 13y ago
    There really IS an objective truth to report. The NSA is either collecting certain data or it isn't, and so on. There's a lot of stuff like that. There's other, speculative stuff, like to what extent if any the NSA is breaking the law. I'd contend that a reporter who cannot present the facts as facts for fear of being perceived as "biased" or cannot form and state an opinion about the speculative/subjective stuff is kind of subpar.
  - mehwoot 13y ago
    The point is you want journalists working in an environment where it is expected people stay neutral. Whilst one person will have a bias, you always have other people who read the piece and edit it to keep that in check. That sort of person, even if they are just as biased as independent reporter X, will produce much more balanced work. It's all well and good to say "Oh everybody has a bias" but everybody's bias is not as large as anothers, and doesn't affect their writing in the same way. I would much rather read pieces by a reporter like Greenwald that makes it clear where he stands, than a journalist that pretends - maybe even to himself/herself - that there is an objective truth they can report. That's fine- as I said, you can read what you want. I'm just explaining why a lot of people see it differently.

by namdnay 13y ago

walshemj 13y ago

Yes you write the story to suit the papers owners political leanings - even the Guardian bashes the BBC (the parent company owns a few low quality commercial radio stations). Let alone what Murdoch and the DMG et all get up to

peteretep 13y ago

Presentation of opinion as fact, and selection of a set of facts that support your opinion, with an accompanying omission of those that don't, is controversial.

RyanMcGreal 13y ago
Selecting facts and presenting opinions while pretending not to have them is worse.
namdnay 13y ago
That's why you need the "taste for truth". It's not controversial in the business world: I am perfectly capable of giving an unbiased presentation of the pros and cons of Git over Mercurial, even though I personally prefer the latter.

mehwoot 13y ago

I don't understand why this is supposed to be so controversial Because humans in general have an extreme bias towards believing things they want to believe and not believing things they don't. It is very rare to find someone who truly reports things neutrally and even rarer in a situation where stringent neutrality is not fostered. I guess other people are free to read whatever they want, but I very rarely read opinion pieces or news from people who I know are firmly on one side or another. They are not usually honestly investigating the facts and more likely trying to sway people to their position. Whilst that is understandable as they are human, and they are not necessarily incorrect, it is not what I want from my news.

vidarh 13y ago
Everyone writes with a bias. The difference is whether or not they are honest and open about what their biases are. I would much rather read pieces by a reporter like Greenwald that makes it clear where he stands, than a journalist that pretends - maybe even to himself/herself - that there is an objective truth they can report.
- untog 13y ago
  Everyone writes with a bias. The difference is whether or not they are honest and open about what their biases are. No, the difference is whether or not the approach their writing aware of, and compensating for, their biases.
- justin66 13y ago
  There really IS an objective truth to report. The NSA is either collecting certain data or it isn't, and so on. There's a lot of stuff like that. There's other, speculative stuff, like to what extent if any the NSA is breaking the law. I'd contend that a reporter who cannot present the facts as facts for fear of being perceived as "biased" or cannot form and state an opinion about the speculative/subjective stuff is kind of subpar.
- mehwoot 13y ago
  The point is you want journalists working in an environment where it is expected people stay neutral. Whilst one person will have a bias, you always have other people who read the piece and edit it to keep that in check. That sort of person, even if they are just as biased as independent reporter X, will produce much more balanced work. It's all well and good to say "Oh everybody has a bias" but everybody's bias is not as large as anothers, and doesn't affect their writing in the same way. I would much rather read pieces by a reporter like Greenwald that makes it clear where he stands, than a journalist that pretends - maybe even to himself/herself - that there is an objective truth they can report. That's fine- as I said, you can read what you want. I'm just explaining why a lot of people see it differently.