Seeing as to how we incessantly roast American reportage for injecting the leftwing version of ethics and morality into straight news, to see a wire service leaving E&M out should be hailed as objective reporting and welcomed. Unless you're saying the only good reporting is reporting that serves up your particular version of E&M. Have I got it right?Posted by The Owner's Manual at December 18, 2004 11:52 AM
No, I have to say you've got it wrong. Having been an editor for many years I have first-hand knowledge of the techniques of shaping stories and coverage. Some things have to do with "vocabulary," other things have to do with knowing "which" writer to assign to which story, still other things have to do with "cutting and trimming" -- which in this case is what is operating. And it is not only what you cut in the story, but when you cut the story.
More broadly, there's the question of values and point of view being brought to the story and being pushed out by the news organization. Reuters is famous for the overt and the covert point of view and has come by this reputation through years of long, hard, applied work.
Even more toward the deeper implication. It would seem that you hold, perhaps just for argument, that there are different, equally valid, state of ethics and morality -- that the ethics and morality of hanging and stoning women for fornication is just as good, relatively speaking, as not doing so. I reject the notion that ethics and morals are relative. It is, I am aware, seen as proof that the person who holds that view is modern and progressive, but I find it to be evidence of a retrograde system of thought.
But that's just me.Posted by Gerard Van der Leun at December 18, 2004 12:12 PM
I imagine that looking back through history at journalistic styles would prove Gerard correct.
I'm no expert, but I can't imagine a story from the WW II era describing a Nazi death camp in cold, factual terms. Unless it was Nazi propaganda.
Today's journalists take pride in such things. What a waste of oxygen.Posted by Jeff Brokaw at December 18, 2004 2:06 PM
Let's make it interesting...suppose this candidate for stoning happened to be mentally retarded, and has the capacity of an 8 year old. Would that make any difference in the "matter of fact" reporting of a cultural "activity?"
I refer you to this:
Girl With Mental Age of Eight Given Death SentencePosted by IR at December 18, 2004 3:11 PM
Seeing as to how we incessantly roast American reportage for injecting the leftwing version of ethics and morality into straight news, to see a wire service leaving E&M out should be hailed as objective reporting and welcomed.
To elaborate on Mr. Van der Leun's remarks, Reuters' objectivity is not applied equally across the spectrum of its work. That application consciously depends on the subject being reported.
Owner's Manual called it correctly.Posted by David Sucher at December 19, 2004 6:42 AM