GirlChat #607364

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

Re: Florida law def. of sexual battery - wtf?

Posted by Dante on Monday, December 15 2014 at 01:45:49AM
In reply to Re: Florida law def. of sexual battery - wtf? posted by Baldur on Saturday, December 13 2014 at 6:46:27PM

I wish I could remember the source for the old aphorism, Everything you see in the papers is 100% true – except that which you have personal knowledge of.

But yes. I recall being present when a colleague was interviewed for a report, and the very next day she said, "I didn't say anything remotely like that." Since I was present, I had to concur.

Like most folks, my data points are few. But unlike most, I won't presume that my personal experience is so idiosyncratic that it cannot be applied to others.

I'm reminded of a friend who didn't much care for comparative-religion celeb Joseph Campbell at the height of his fame. He said that of course he didn't personally know all the world mythologies that Campbell was citing. My friend only knew the Native American ones from the Pacific Northwest that he had studied extensively. But since Campbell was grossly inaccurate about those ones my friend didn't care to presume that some statistically unlikely coincidence had placed Campbell's sole area where he was flawed into my friends area of expertise.

If they're unreliable when we're watching them closely, then relying on them for secondhand reporting requires something more than gullible acceptance.

I also knew a nerd girl reporter who covered a Star Wars convention for a major daily. When she objected that the "Beam Them Up Scotty" headline would make the article seem as if it was written by someone pig ignorant she was told to let editorial do its job of selling papers.

This is why even when your local source is pulling stuff off of a fairly reputable wire service, you can expect to see errors of originality in headlines and photo captions, since they originate elsewhere.

And speaking of Sci-Fi nerds. I knew one of the grand old Star Trek fans who the TV press wanted to interview when ST was being resurrected by that first motion picture. But by now she was used to the fact that reportage on outside communities tends to confirm prejudices. And that reports on SF fans tends to be of the "look at the freaks" kind. So she simply asked for approval of the final edit. That alone was enough to shut up the reporters.

You can't expect an investigative journalist to cater to the approval of the party they are alleging was doing wrong. But on a human interest puff piece, it showed that they had little interest in allowing her to come off looking like a human.

Of course that was back before the fanboys took over the planet; before it was possible to envision an Oscar for LOtR or that office water cooler convo would switch from "Did you see what happened on Cheers?" to "Did you see who died on Game of Thrones?"

These days its the freaks who are covering the freakshow, even of they can't convince editorial to keep its geekdoms straight.

Dante

Dante





Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)
Subject







Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?