 |
|
Here's a simple example for you
Posted on: November 25, 2022 at 12:20:28 CT
BigDave MU
Posts:
8282
Member For:
25.92 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
that has nothing to do with politics or ideology.
Two people are eyewitnesses to a crime. What clearly happened was Person A shot and killed Person B. Witness Y saw both A & B from an angle that they only saw A shoot B. But Witness Z could see that B had pulled a knife on A and A was only defending himself.
If you only want to talk to Witness Y, you are going to report this was just a cold blooded murder. This would certainly be factual, from that perspective. Would it not?
It is only when you also report on the perspective of Witness Z that you get the correct perspective that it was self defense. This is also factual.
So what is "factual" can be determined by perspective. The same is true for ideology and politics. If you only present one side, and are only open to hearing that one side, you can argue it is "factual", but it can indeed by completely wrong.
Two people are eyewitnesses to a crime. What clearly happened was Person A shot and killed Person B. Witness Y saw both A & B from an angle that they only saw A shoot B. But Witness Z could see that B had pulled a knife on A and A was only defending himself.
If you only want to talk to Witness Y, you are going to report this was just a cold blooded murder. This would certainly be factual, from that perspective. Would it not?
It is only when you also report on the perspective of Witness Z that you get the correct perspective that it was self defense. This is also factual.
So what is "factual" can be determined by perspective. The same is true for ideology and politics. If you only present one side, and are only open to hearing that one side, you can argue it is "factual", but it can indeed by completely wrong.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
- 
Here's a simple example for you - BigDave MU - 11/25 12:20:28