Text 8078, 70 rader
Skriven 2006-09-11 21:20:00 av Robert E Starr JR (8575.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: ABC backs down on 9/1
=================================
* * * This message was from Kurt Ullman to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID:
<kurtullman-3DAB79.08571910092006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>
@REPLY:
<C12752DC.EFC0%gabryant@fuse.net><0001HW.C1285444042A1BFEF0407530@news.verizon.net><7tudnfh8DPEidp_YnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@com

In article <0001HW.C128B859001614ABF0407530@news.verizon.net>,
 Amy Guskin <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote:

> 
> But West Wing and Commander-in-Chief were _fictional_ series, through and 
> through.  They weren't portraying actual, living people who served in 
> government and actual events and screwing up the facts with their Hollywood 
> liberal bias.  HUGE difference.
   I would argue that suggesting any pro-abortion Republican could 
actually get the nomination is screwing facts. 


> 
> >> A person can either try to suppress the other side (and by doing so giving

> > up all right to complain when they do the same) or they can let the other 
> > side go and then correct whatever mistakes and misstatements that were 
> > made. 
> > Scream them at the top of your lungs until you're hoarse... then broadcast 
> > them all over the 'net.  If the mistakes are intentional and aggregious, 
> > then anyone that cares about such things will factor that into anythng from

> > that source in the future.   I doubt that many people care anyway though.<<
> 
> All of this 'pc' evenhandedness is getting in the way of objective truth.  
> There _is_ an objective truth, and it's one thing to present a biased picture

> of what someone in Hollywood would like American government to be like -- 
> "West Wing" -- and say, "Okay, that's biased -- I'm not going to watch it."  
> But you cannot let people present lies and distortion about _actual events_ 
> as _history_.

   There is no such thing as objective truth outside of mathematics and 
that is suspect at times. The person viewing the truth views the 
objectiveness of it, which automatically makes it subjective. 
   This one of the reasons I argued at great length with my Journalism 
school instructors as far back of the mid-70s that teaching that 
journalists are objective is just plain stupid and a conceit of the 
industry.   You can not get someone who is objective because, unless 
they are transcribing things verbatim, they filter the information and 
throw out some and keep out some based on their experience, background 
and training. I have always said that it is better to teach journalists 
to know their biases so they can acknowledge them and work around them.
     Much of history is lies, distortions, or fudging of the facts. An 
absolutely facinating"seminar"  on history was presented recently on HBO 
by Robert Wuhl of "Arli$$ fame that pretty much sets out how popular 
culture writes history. 
   One of his illustrations was Paul Revere's ride, all 13 miles of it 
and how he got all the attention while Israel Bissell ("sounds like a 
Jewish vacuum cleaner company"), rode hundreds of miles and through 5 
different states and got bupkus. Why? Because a few years later 
Longfellow thought "Listen my children and you shall hear of the 
mid-night ride of Paul Revere" sounded better than anything that woulda 
rhymed with Bissell.
     There are other, not the least of which is the idea that history is 
written by victors, etc. etc. etc.   There is no such thing as objective 
truth, Only various shadings of subjectivity.
                                                                               
                
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)