Gazpacho wrote:
Quote:
Yes, I know that Dan Rather was covered in this book. I just really can't believe that anyone would consider Dan Rather an unbiased journalist.
Can you name an unbiased journalist or editor? They all bring their life experiences to work with them (as we all do), and that affects their basic understanding of how the world works. How could that not inform the decisions they make?

Quote:
Ayn Rand would love the discussion earlier that just because a camera can only point in one direction, and not give an entire picture of the world, that there will never be any truth in journalism.
Where did anyone say that? You seem to have an idea in your head of an ideal newscast that would include All Relevant Objective Truth, and anything short of that means "no truth in journalism." It's not an all-or-nothing deal. Journalism is carried out by flawed human beings with biases. Even the most "objective" journalists will tell you this is the case, and that a big part of the job is to be aware of one's own prejudices and reduce the degree to which they intrude into the work.

A report might be accurate as far as it goes, but how far it goes and whether a given story is covered at all is a judgement call. It has to be. There are only so many minutes in a newscast and so many pages in a periodical.

So it's best to view all accurate reporting as a tile in a mosaic: part of the truth, but never the whole truth.