It's essential that we can all see the whole picture
I think you are being unfair to those concerned with simple accuracy in the conveyance of information (especially when expecting folk to make key decisions upon it), but well said... written!
What you share has particular resonance in my main area of interests these days, the environment.
Cherry picking facts that are convenient to the agenda/message of the author is rife, and as far as I can make out serving no one (including that author) well.
You can sort of expect an advertiser to try and paint the best picture, but even here the extremes have been taken to silly levels, as the ASA weekly testifies.
But when it comes to the media, from scientific data to surveys to just about anything I am presented, usually with a sexed up headline, as 'fact', I simply don't believe it unless I can see all the source data that lead to the - often wildly unrepresentative - conclusion.
And let's not get onto our political establishment.
So, as a minor medium myself, it amazes me to see press releases I have rejected until I get follow-up substantiation (which seldom happens), dutifully cut and pasted in pretty major organs.
As you say, 'just the facts, ma'am'.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.
Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.
I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.