.
After writing casually that I had a hard time separating fact from fiction, an internet chum who is a journalism prof and former LATimes reporter wrote back in the under140-character style that is popular these days, "Facts are overrated."
On the one hand, it may have been one of those intellectual bon mots that sounds good and requires no lengthy response to an earlier communication. On the other hand, there is something to be said for sniffing the fire hydrant: "Facts are overrated." Is this just another overrated fact, perhaps?
How many facts does anyone keep in this life's file box? Zillions is my guesstimate. Facts about geography, facts about love, facts about yo-yo's, facts about baloney, facts about high-speed driving, facts about politics and religion and space travel and shoe sizes and .... etc.
It is hard to look closely and find the dividing line between fact and fiction. It is hard to look closely and find the fact in facts. Facts are offered as steady-state items, as rocking chairs in which to rest, as premises from which other premises follow. Facts are facts from one moment to the next. Or are they? Isn't it our relying on them that gives them their force? And in fact, how reliable are they really?
Calling facts fiction is not quite right and yet calling them fiction isn't quite right either.
Offer the facts and what is it you have offered?
It's a curious business.
.
"Calling facts fiction is not quite right and yet calling them fiction isn't quite right either."
ReplyDeleteAll I know is that someone should be calling the editor... :)
Had a somewhat philosophical discussion with a fellow long ago when he presented the idea of "real knowledge". He said it was what you experienced or observed and knew. I must confess he stumped me. I've always held personal knowledge to be suspicious. I'm afraid this is a thread you can pull 'til the whole universe unravels.
ReplyDeleteFacts?
ReplyDeleteKnowledge?
Real? Experiential? Personal?
It may be helpful to spend a fair amount of time studying Epistemology.
It may also be a good idea to stay away from TV news especially highly opinionated outlets like FOX News. (BTW the Canadian government recently denied FOX a broadcast license because as an organization it refused to promise not to broadcast outright lies. Wow! Now that's news!)
Mick -- I see nothing wrong with epistemological approaches ... as long as no one presumes that such study could make them happy or bring them peace.
ReplyDeleteOn the Canadian move, the best I can find includes:
"Canada's Radio Act requires that 'a licenser may not broadcast ... any false or misleading news.'"
That comes from: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/276-74/5123-fox-news-lies-keep-them-out-of-canada
And, associatively, there was a 2003 court case in Florida in which Fox successfully argued the right of news organizations to lie: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/07/31/364678/-Fox-News-wins-in-court The argument appears to have been won on First Amendment-Freedom of Speech guarantees. Interesting koan ... and also a bit shameful of an organization purporting to offer the "news."
Mick Writes: "(BTW the Canadian government recently denied FOX a broadcast license because as an organization it refused to promise not to broadcast outright lies. Wow! Now that's news!)"
ReplyDeleteMick, if they promised not to broadcast outright lies, they could never show Obama speeches.
Broadcasting the lies of others is very different from making up your own and presenting them as fair and balanced.
ReplyDelete