The main sticking point here seems to me to be 'accurately' or 'objectively'. An example I've used elsewhere is photographs of politicians looking foolish. Depending on the politician or the photographer or the person seeing the photograph, the picture can be perceived as cruel or funny or a sad confirmation of what we all knew all the time.
ALL news journalism is campaigning journalism. Some campaign for one side; some campaign for the other; and those who campaign for 'objectivity' are campaigning for their subjective interpretation of it. I campaign for silver halide photography!
Learning to guess/spot the bias is essential, and should be taught in school. That's why, when I was at school, the VIth form common room at my house subscribed (at my suggestion) to the North Vietnam Peace News and the British Union of Fascists newsletter. You'd be amazed at how many elderly fascists were reported as being murdered by the evil Jews -- at 85, the weapon of choice being a heart attack...
Perhaps the heart of the debate is really this: what are the limits of legitimacy in campaigning?
Last edited by Roger Hicks; 05-24-2006 at 12:10 PM. Click to view previous post history.