|
|
|
|
|
|
by macspoofing
2336 days ago
|
|
|
>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". |
|
|
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.