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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (35632)	4/21/1999 11:33:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

as Pilate said, -- "What is truth?" I once participated in an event which was reported in painstaking detail by television, by print journalists, and by various levels of bureaucrats (the "People Power" revolution that deposed Ferdinand Marcos). I was able to observe the television reports, read the reports of the journalists, and got a good look at what some of the bureaucrats - including some who consider themselves secretive - had to say. My opinion was that all of them missed vital points, distorted to suit preconceptions, often preconceptions based on stunning ignorance (I am reasonably well informed on my little corner), and in general got the story wrong. The historical record of the event is wildly and fundamentally flawed, and the flaws have had real repercussions on policy. Is this the case with all historical records, of all events? I couldn't say, obviously. But I read news reports with a good deal more caution than I used to.

To: jbe who wrote (35632)	4/22/1999 2:40:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<<I have the advantage of having been, at one time or another, a reporter, an academic, and a (minor) government bureaucrat. And in my considered judgment, you are more likely to get something close to the 'unvarnished truth" from the reporter than from the academic or the bureaucrat. IMHO.>> But unlike Pilate, I bet you will stay for an answer to "What is truth?" IMHO, truth is the whole, complete, full, unedited, unsugarcoated, record of what occurred. A court reporter's record, despite the misheard and misunderstood work comes close, or the continuous video record comes close, especially when it can be compared to the court reporter's record. The judge's, lawyer's, jury's notes are incomplete and limited to key points. The newspaper reporter's nonstenographic notes may help him reconstruct what he thinks was important, but my experience has been to always be misquoted by reporters whenever I was a subject of the story. I am certain it was the reporter's fault, although God help you if you are ever quoted in a headline. You will no doubt recall the lawsuit against the New Yorker in which the writer was accused of attributing quotations to the subject and the writer defended her right to recreate and not say "or words to that effect." Truth is not "words to that effect." One had better pray if he seeks truth in the press. Even should the reporter get it right, the editors will turn it into lies. They can't help it, its their nature. Its there job to make the news fit the print. And sell. Bureaucrats, which I have been also, have an irresistible need to conceal and distort. It hardly seems worthwhile to have them sworn to tell the truth. Truth is not in them. But everything I published as a bureaucrat was thoroughly reviewed, weasel-worded, and when it left my hands as near to the truth as I could tell, at least as far as it went. Academics (as which I have the most experience) are wedded to truth. Everything published in a referreed journal represents a long-drawn out process in which the author, the reviewers, and the editors have checked out everything. Anything published otherwise doesn't matter unless it conforms to the processo of referral. True, no one examines the calibration of the equipment or reruns the calculations, but the author must make available enough detail to allow one familiar with the art to replicate the experiment. Every significant article will be replicated, and a negative replication will be published and the author drawn into a defense of his work. The danger of published untruth is limited to marginal or unselective low prestige journal and an article of little interest to active researchers. No one tries to replicate, and errors (even intentional) are perpetuated. That an academic will make mistakes is only to be expected -- but important mistakes will nearly always be corrected in time. No one is immune to this process of review. Distinguished, Nobel prize winners have been disgraced and discharged because of an associate's sloppy work (e.g. David Baltimore). When he allowed his name to appear on the paper, he took responsibility for the truthfulness of the research process and reporting. It is in academia, rather than the government and the courts or press that one can expect to find the truth.

To: jbe who wrote (35632)	4/22/1999 6:08:00 AM
From: Crocodile	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<They are almost invariably male, tall, and hefty, and they use their even heftier equipment to shove everyone else out of the way, in order to occupy the front row. > Joan, I believe that this is why one very well known female Canadian journalist (of petite physique) used to wear very tall, stiletto high heels... not for the additional bit of height which they added... but because she could remove and wave them about while threatening to poke out the eyes of any male reporter/cameraman who blocked her way as she pursued the prime minister through the scrum in the Parliament Buildings... Incidentally, her tactic is reported to have worked very well...;-}> Croc