Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (33489)	3/8/2004 5:09:49 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793845

The problem is the misleading aspect of not mentioning someone's background when it obviously would change how their POV would be viewed. If you're a reporter who is reporting from the scene of a train derailment, you find some walking wounded and put a microphone or a tape recorder in their faces. Then you report a representative mix of what you heard. You don't ask the people whether they're affiliated with any political party or union or professional association. You just report their reactions to the event. Now, once past the immediate reaction stage you notice some themes with a political bent or hear people using the same phrases or see some people who seem to be organizing the victims or you have a source telling you that some people are organizing, then you check into it and you report it. I don't see how it can be any other way. Can you imagine interviewing someone in the train wreck who is in pain from a broken foot and fussing about how train safety is criminal, then asking that person if he's a union rep or employed by a company that sells train safety equipment or has some other bias? You just accept his pain and anger at face value until you have reason to do otherwise. The WTC families are mourning victims first, voters second. No one but a political junkie and cynic would assume the reverse.