[bilbo0s]

Interesting that none of the rules of journalism include just reporting facts. In fact, it says that journalists should be disciplined for "reckless" reporting of any fact.

It kind of explains why we live in the fact light environment of quotes and spin. Presumably, if a hard fact proves unpopular with a large enough group, then those facts, even when backed by hard evidence, can likely land you in a lot of trouble.

A bit understandable I suppose? I mean, if talking bad about Trump or Obama increases the number of shooters in your Walmarts and churches, then yeah, probably should be careful about doing that. At the same time, if you have to walk on egg shells around people so emotionally invested in a person, or place, or subject that they're going to shoot up anyone who disagrees with them, then your journalism on that issue is not likely to be very "good" in any case.

[macspoofing]

>Interesting that none of the rules of journalism include just reporting facts.

Facts are not enough because in order for 'facts' to be useful they have to be embedded in a larger structure - like a theory, or ideology, or narrative, or whatever.

Here's a fact: "Sun rises in the East, and sets in the West". This fact is compatible with heliocentric and geocentric models. The fact on its own doesn't tell you which is which. It doesn't tell you the context, nor the other facts that may have been omitted or superfluously included when reported, and proponents of both theories can use it to justify their position. This is why there can never be such a thing as "journalism that just reports the facts".

[bilbo0s]

>This fact is compatible with heliocentric and geocentric models. The fact on its own doesn't tell you which is which.

But the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun does tell you which "model" is actually a fact. That's the point.

You're making an argument about which facts should be reported? The sun rising in the east? Or the phases of Venus? Or both? Or both and more?

But stating that you need an ideology or narrative to support your facts is a bit nonsensical in my own opinion. There really is only one conclusion that can be drawn from the totality of the facts. To state only a single fact, and then say, "here is an ideology or narrative so you can understand the fact I just gave you." Really is just stating an ideology or narrative.

Think of it this way, if you still need a narrative, then you didn't give anyone all the facts.

[AnimalMuppet]

Nobody has time to read all the facts.

Nobody has time to report all the facts.

Nobody knows ALL the facts.

[nickloewen]

Indeed, sometimes reporting “just the facts” is more likely to lead people to the wrong conclusion than the right one. (For example, I think it would be difficult to come to an accurate understanding of social inequality if one was only ever given statistical facts, and never any interpretation or root cause analysis.)

[dredmorbius]

I ran across one of dang's guidelines for HN decorum recently:

There are infinitely many facts. They don't select themselves. Humans do that, for reasons of their own, and sometimes their reasons don't match the intended use of this website, which is curious conversation. So while facts are a nice-to-have, they're not sufficient to make for a good HN post. Other things are needed also.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22016653