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 (37456)	4/2/2004 8:53:56 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793928

So it's not so much about demanding proof. It's about objective reporting all relevant facts. I agree with that. Journalists are not supposed to report anyone's allegations without doing any research whatsoever. A light bulb has finally turned on. I think much of the disagreement is apparent in your use of the word, allegations. Partisans see every observation or opinion expressed by someone not in their camp as an allegation whether or not it is expressed as an allegation. They look at the substance in terms of whether it will help or hurt their side. The rest of us recognize when the speaker is making an allegation and when he is simply reporting what he observed and what he concluded from what he observed. I agree with you that reporting allegations demand some research from the reporter to provide balance. Reporting observations and opinions, OTOH, does not. Now, if partisans see allegation in every reported observation, then I can understand the demand for balance (although I think that demanding proof is neither feasible nor reasonable, which is why I challenged it). So, my little insight for today is about folks interpreting observations as allegations and the difference that makes in their reaction to news. As a non-partisan problem-solver, I don't identify with the allegation mode of thinking. I wish I had picked up on the implications of that salient difference in POV earlier. I haven't followed this story closely. I watched Clarke on Sixty Minutes and I read Rice's article. That's about it. Watching Clarke, I didn't see "allegation" from him until near the end of the show, although I understand that he has presented his information in allegation form elsewhere and I understand that one could easily infer allegation given the nature of his observations. Anyway, as I watched him present his observations, I imagine the partisans were blowing their tops over his perceived allegations.