Should newpapers publish the truth?

[cestpaspossible]

[jeff30997]

1. What a strange question.

[LightningFlash]

2. But but but.....

What about Michael Jackson who ran away to Aruba? :crazy: :crazy: :smoke:

[chalky]

3. My first impulse was to post a big fat "Duh!". But I'm curious--

what arguments could anyone possibly have against a newspaper printing the truth? (And by the truth, I mean the WHOLE truth, not just the bits and pieces of the truth that would give an article a particular slant.)

[Chipper Chat]

4. The second choice may seem to be a ridiculous choice, but..

Bill Kristol, in discussing why the Army did the right thing by distorting the truth in the Pat Tillman case (on the Fox Brit Hume show), said as much "in the name of patriotism.".

[Stirk]

5. Newspapers should publish the *facts*.

The idiots who write for the Wall Street Journal's editorial page are convinced they know the *truth*, they just can't support it with real *facts*.

I'd prefer the big news outlets start reporting the relevant facts.

[cestpaspossible]

7. For the purposes of this poll, you should consider those words synonymous

I'm not really talking about editorials, though. Simply whether newspapers should report the truth (the facts) even if it might be misinterpreted.

[FloridaPat]

6. One reason would be so the public doesn't loose faith in their gov't.

I read that in a book about Kennedy and how they had to hide a lot of truth. That was their rationale. Also, so there will be no panics/riots, whatever. Of course if you had the truth all the time, there would be no reason to have panics or riots.

It seems the gov't has always lied to the people, but * gets the award for lying all the time on any subject. If he had a choice between truth and a lie and no consequences on whichever way he picked - he goes for the lie. Unbelieveable.

Then there is "you can't handle the truth". Or politicans know things the public can't know - good old security - so they do one thing a tell a lie as to why it had to be done.

[cestpaspossible]

8. It doesn't make sense to apply the same standard to a newspaper and a

Presidential administration. The administration's role is to govern, the newspaper's role is to inform. Yes, refraining from stating the truth can be a form of deception but there is a substantive difference between this when practiced by the subject of a news article and when practiced by a reporter or editor.

[LightningFlash]

9. Remember what he and Rove said,

"I just catapult propaganda, I'm good at that. I make up lots and lots of propaganda and then force-feed it out to the world, that's how we get things done. Usually it's pretty easy!"

That's our man!!!!! :crazy: :crazy:

[Selatius]

10. You should've put "no, sometimes the truth is too dangerous"

I think that's the gist of the reason why that one guy who helped to found CNN, I believe that was the guy, was trying to get at.

[Cleita]

11. Ehh......I thought that was their job.

:think:

[merh]

12. Well who's truth should they publish?

They should publish the facts, but the truth is subject to interpretation and often manipulation.

I was involved with a brillant lawyer years ago. Arguments with him were hell as he loved to argue that my truth wasn't necessarily his truth. His example was "two people standing on a street corner can observe an accident and can have two entirely different versions of the truth."
Needless to say, the relationship did not last very long.

Newspapers should report the facts, the who, what, when and where. They should not publish their opinions in the news articles. That is what the editorial page is for.

:hi:

[cestpaspossible]

13. As was answered up thread, those terms should be considered

synonymous for the purposes of this poll. The question is should the newspaper report the facts ( or truth, or whatever term you think is appropriate ) as the newspaper can best determine them, although people may draw false conclusions from the facts.

[dalaigh lllama]

14. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth

But it's too easy to use innuendo to cast doubt. Eg., commentators referring to the "supposed" Downing Street memo -- not a lie, exactly, but not what you'd call "truth" either.

[LightningFlash]

15. Downing Street Minutes...

I can't sit by here and believe the leading democrats don't say a thing. :crazy: :crazy: