| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jace Sarice
8883
   |
Posted - 2014.09.14 20:22:00 -
[1] - Quote
Jinari Otsito wrote:I find it distressing that a press organization took an active stand in an event they're reporting on. Whether or not the standpoint can be considered correct or not, it certainly demonstrates a willingness to throw aside journalistic integrity. You'd think either standing aside or leaving the reporting to others would be the path to go to ensure integrity remains.
Considering that Aurora reports are by definition tied to a particular project it is not at all surprising that they would take periodic editorial stands. |
Jace Sarice
8955
|
Posted - 2014.09.14 23:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
Nauplius wrote:In the interest of journalistic integrity, Aurora News ought to identify the persons mentioned in the second paragraph who are rallying and funding efforts against Nauplius.
You should be able to figure this out fairly well by noticing who is shooting at you. And as far as those wanting your death, that would be everyone. |
Jace Sarice
9254
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 13:55:00 -
[3] - Quote
Jinari Otsito wrote:
Opinion pieces and interpretations of events certainly have their place in the press, but if they are not built on unbiased and factual data gathered during neutral investigation and reporting then they too lose their value and credibility.
This is quite literally impossible. There is no such thing as purely objective investigation, reporting, or interpretation of data. To claim otherwise is to just be unaware of your own biases. |
Jace Sarice
9282
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 14:47:00 -
[4] - Quote
Jinari Otsito wrote:Obviously you can't reach a purely objective standpoint, but you can strive for it. That's like saying perfection is unattainable so why care about quality at all?
Striving for it in the manner you have described in this thread is pursuing values and commentary in the same way you are criticizing others for. If a journalist bought into your interpretation of their job description, it would be just as laden with values and opinions as those you are criticizing - merely less forthright about them. Journalistic integrity is as much a propaganda tool as those you are decrying. |
Jace Sarice
9282
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 14:48:00 -
[5] - Quote
Stitcher wrote:
Of course, the most convincing lies are those that the lie-teller is themselves convinced of, so I wouldn't be surprised if your average journalist was outraged at my impugning their honesty.
I do not have survey data of journalists, but anecdotally I would think quite the opposite. Most journalists I have met are quite aware of the nature of their industry. |
Jace Sarice
9320
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 15:13:00 -
[6] - Quote
Jinari Otsito wrote:Jace Sarice wrote:Jinari Otsito wrote:Obviously you can't reach a purely objective standpoint, but you can strive for it. That's like saying perfection is unattainable so why care about quality at all? Striving for it in the manner you have described in this thread is pursuing values and commentary in the same way you are criticizing others for. If a journalist bought into your interpretation of their job description, it would be just as laden with values and opinions as those you are criticizing - merely less forthright about them. Journalistic integrity is as much a propaganda tool as those you are decrying. You don't see the difference in striving for objectivity over personal values and opinions, and actively aiming for propaganda? At least tell me you'll never get into any scientific endeavor, as that'd relieve me to no end.
I am saying that 'striving for objectivity' is a 'personal value and opinion.' |
Jace Sarice
9337
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 15:47:00 -
[7] - Quote
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:Stitcher wrote:There is no such thing as objective moral truth. I'll stop there in quoting you: You have no proof for this. It's your personal worldview that this is the case - and in fact it is one that is logically self-defeating: They can't have a duty, really, to anything, if 'objective moral truth' doesn't exist. Nor ought we then accept the proposition 'There is no such thing as objective moral truth.' in itself.
Duty is not necessarily linked with objective moral truth.
As for the rest of your statement, I largely agree. |
Jace Sarice
9403
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 16:34:00 -
[8] - Quote
Vizage wrote:
The default scientific position is scepticism. The burden of proof is always on the claimant of existence, not on the claimant on nonexistence.
Science, strictly speaking, is a generally agreed upon method - not a worldview or value statement. It does not have a 'default position.' Science utilizes the empirical, it is not necessarily empiricist. It utilizes logic, it is not logical positivism. Etc. |
Jace Sarice
9456
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 18:25:00 -
[9] - Quote
Vizage wrote:
The entire concept of peer review is based on the default position of scepticism and challenges.
Yes, your default position is a particular form of skepticism - not 'science.' If 'science' had a default position, 'philosophy of science' would not be a subset of inquiry. The vast majority of the nonsense in the last part of this thread could easily be avoided if you organized your terminology and used it properly instead of conflating disparate concepts. |
Jace Sarice
9456
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 18:43:00 -
[10] - Quote
Vizage wrote: Just because the scientific method requires a default position of scepticism . . .
This was one of the conflations I was speaking of. But I believe Ms. Mithra was correct in leaving this discussion. Nothing useful will come of it. |
| |
|