Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
When your talking about something like SunT.V. or CTV news net or CBC news and we're complaining about the delivery of the news. Are we complaining about the news itself or the opions that go with the delivery.
|
I see it as being about the differentiation between news or opinion; these proposed revisions, as I see them, have the potential to allow media sources to present opinions or unsubstantiated theories -- things that are not known to be true or false -- as fact. I have no problem with a media source having strong opinions that cannot be proven, as long as they're clearly differentiated from factual reporting.
I think a dangerous cycle that you see occasionally in the US is when one program speculates on something and then other programs or networks pick up this and run with it as fact. For example, the wildly-inflated reports of the cost of Obama's recent trip to Asia. One pundit at some point said 'I think the costs may be as high as ...', and then other programs and networks began reporting this as fact without qualifying the sources, but changed the meaning from 'may be as high as' to 'is'.
