A reader takes issue with my last post ...
"Seems like what we have here is a classic example of people should not talk about what they know not. Blogs are what they are and we understand that. Don't you wonder if blogs by people who "create" the news should hold themselves to a higher journalistic standard?"
Well, I certainly am playing the speculation game. But Sen. Goodwin's words are her own. She told Traveler reporter Foss Farrar that she'll be running against Kasha. She told me she's preparing for Kasha. Since Kasha hasn't decided, it seemed appropriate to lay out the case as to why Greta would tell journalists who her opponent will be.
But, point taken. In fact we we had placed calls into Kasha this morning to ask about all this. Haven't heard from her yet but we'll have something in the paper soon.
David
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Thank you for taking a reasonable position on your response to previous post. Since you are political, you seem to have a tendency to want to jump into the action. Since you have a brain and use it, you are also willing to stand corrected. That falls into line with how you think highly of the word practical.
I like her (Kasha). I hope she runs for Senator of KS.
Perhaps this time we can get Mrs. Goodwin to retire to Winfield instead of Topeka.
While we are on "creating news" why is it you are afraid of local politics? The school bond issue, the city commission, the county commission? You should bring up not only what we can talk about, but things we can do something about.
Since you have no political affiliation and are probably closer to the middle of the road, you probably can see better than most what fits into local politics. Can you give us your views on what or who (not names) could put us into a better position for growth in the city and the county? What kind of person do we need? Who do we have now that we need to support? How can we find the right people to run.
We have just a few months for the county, and a little over a year to city elections. How do we organize so that the we get what we want? How can we verify that the people running will do what we ask?
Are there any leaders or groups in the area that we can trust to help us on this? Please give us your ideas so we can start discussions with people that can help. Here or elsewhere.
Regardless of the quote, do you not check the facts? Can you print something without verifying?
Is the paper responsible for what you call "news" and can you be held liable for it? On your opinion page people can say anything they please and not be held accountable, but who is responsible for the "news" you report? How can I know what to believe?
How can we get "just the facts"?
Fact:: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
Data: : factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation
Journalism: the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media
Opinion: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
Think: to form or have in the mind
All good information to keep somewhere lest we fall into the trap of only wanting to hear what we want to hear.
There is an opportunity for us to read and accept, to read and reject or to read and discuss to a common understanding. Finally, the highest form of human interaction is witnessed in the ability to agree to disagree
Can we get the facts without the opinion? Can we have journalism with all of the facts? Does journalism decide what we should know and what they don't think we care about?
Is opinion journalism? Does journalism include all of the data or just what is seen fit to share?
We know space is limited, and someone has to sort through what will fit. We also know there is sometimes more news than you can share, and other cases where you don't have all of the information. Wouldn't it be wise to tell us that? We would better understand that not all of the information is there.
The problem as I see it is your choice of what you share, and telling us that you cannot share it all.
You are scolding David when David did not offer those definitions or that view point. I am gravely concerned about our community's extremist dialog of the past several months.
Now, this new adaptation emerges. Let's talk about our political landscape as a function of history? Only thing open for discussion is what has taken place? We cannot discuss prospective candidates?
Isn't that a bit of a head in the sand approach? Next thing you know we will be asking our US Senator Tiahrt (please insert tempered laughter here) to introduce congressional legislation imposing penalty including fines and/or imprisonment on Entertainment Tonight for guessing at who is about to marry (or divorce) whom.
I would rather talk about the future potential plans for The Honorable Ms. Kelly than entertain more of these eulogists over the Big Box fiasco.
I am not afraid to be challenged to think through some things. As I said, you can accept, reject or counter-propose a scenario based on the latest information in print or on television.
Hard left turn here but, that is what the Obama campaign is re-introducing to America; a chance to actually think for one's self instead of waiting for the latest political edict to exude from the stodgy old partisan leadership of either traditional party.
Could we at least keep news, that would be facts and data, throughout the newspaper and leave the opinions on the opinion page? There are far too many people that believe the tripe in our local news columns.
For those who cannot discern the difference, list the news as news and gossip as opinion.
Post a Comment