Just a general comment of the trustworthiness of sources.
Of all written material, perhaps daily newspapers are the least dependable
for getting specific details correct or subtle distinctions clear. I presume
that it's not a matter of intentional misrepresentation, but mostly a matter
of deadlines that discourage accuracy.
Some years ago I spent a lot of time with newspaper reporters. A reporter
would sometimes spend an hour or two in my office. I would work hard at
explaining the specifics of some recent interaction I may have had with
Trustees, administrators, or supportive constituents of Calvin College. When
the reporter left my office I had high hopes that she/he had a clear
understanding of what I had said.
Reading their published reports the next day was, more often than not, a
disillusioning experience. Occasionally the report was an excellent summary
of what we had talked about. Commonly there were significant errors of fact
or a misunderstanding of issues. Sometimes I could barely recognize the
report as something based on our conversation -- a journalistic disaster. it
seemed as if the story had been written before the interview, and was not
substantially influenced by it.
Since that time I have adopted the following attitude toward daily newspaper
reports. They are valuable. But their value is not in getting details or
subtle distinctions straight; do not depend on that form of journalism for
detail or subtle distinctions. What daily journalism is most valuable for is
its ability to quickly alert the general public that something of interest
has occurred. Those persons who are especially interested will then know
that there is something deserving of further investigation. If you want
accuracy re detail, or subtle distinctions re complex issues, you must take
the newspaper story as no more than a starting point for further
investigation.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 12 2002 - 11:41:23 EDT