I think Michael has nailed it right here...we are all influenced by the way we look at things, and interpret them. While I agree that there is rarely, if ever 'truth' in all things human, I believe there are facts... even though pinpointing a fact is like solving a calculus limits problem...you may never actually get the number, but you can get close enough for all practical purposes.Originally Posted by blansky
So it may be more practical to define Journalistic Integrity not as a reporting of 'truth' but as a reporting of facts without undo influence of personal point of view. "A red car approached the STOP sign, but did not come to a complete stop before entering the intersection." That is a fact, uninhibited by personal influence. It has more journalistic integrity than "A red car driven by an inattentive kid (who was probably talking on his cell phone) just blew right through the STOP sign." Now that last statement might have been a lot closer to the facts of the situation, but our ability to trust the integrity of the last report is diminished by things that can not be proven.
So... to make a short story long what I am trying to say is that our perception of journalistic integrity is actually our ability to trust what the writer says. Phew!