"Ballanced" news --was-- Re: Re[4]: [BC] Air America

[Cowboy]

On Monday 10 October 2005 07:48 pm, Douglas Schleutker wrote:
>On 10/10/2005 at 6:34 PM Cowboy wrote:
>
>> Somehow, it seems to me that there should be absolutely nothing about
>> news that needs to be "fair" "balanced" or otherwise doctored to include,
>> or exclude anything other than who, what, when, and where.
>> Much departure from that and it ceases to be news, and becomes commentary.
>
>
>I agree.   This is just semantics.    My definition of 'fair' where it applies to news would be:
>NOT otherwise doctored to include, or exclude anything other than who, what, when, and where.
>(maybe why and how)     

 I thought about including why, but that is far too often the means by which
 news degenerates into commentary.
 "How" would more often also be idle speculation.
 That one would require journalistic integrity to make the judgement as to whether
 or not to include "how". Sadly, journalistic integrity seems to be the primary problem,
 and is therefore not available as a solution.

-- 
Cowboy

http://cowboys.homeip.net

The fortune program is supported, in part, by user contributions and by
a major grant from the National Endowment for the Inanities.