Dear stuart-santiago,
I would be happy if “news hosts”, in interviewing witnesses and those who are being ascribed with wrongdoing, asked questions that elicited facts instead of repetitive denials and exhortations. No, i don’t require “news hosts” to take a stand; no, the problem is not the role of media in informing its audience because the show did not even meet that minimum; no, i don’t want reporters to try to sway the public in one direction; no, i don’t want reporters to tryto advocate anything; and no, skepticism is not a “cop-out”, i still expect journalists to doubt everything and not to readily believe anyone; and the method for that, for example, is a series of quick, follow-up questions to elicit specifics. Thanks for writing!
Discover more from marichulambino.com
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“i still expect journalists to doubt everything and not to readily believe anyone; and the method for that, for example, is a series of quick, follow-up questions to elicit specifics.”
you’re right, journalists should not readily believe anyone, they should do some critical thinking of their own, which should lead to the right questions to elicit facts. if they do this, at a certain point they should be capable of deciding who is telling the truth and who is lying, and that’s when some advocacy should come in, as in your case, your advocacies are clear, anti-plunder, pro-humanrights etc.
LikeLike
dear stuart-santiago: Nope, i don’t have “advocacies”, it’s a trite word, i try not to use it for the work. I give abridged legal opinions; get riled up by stupidity, brazenness, the latter, visceral, not “advocacy”. That’s about it. Thank you for writing!
For “allan”: this is not Luningning’s website, sowee. thank you for writing.
LikeLike