I think that it's just a reflection of how most people see it, Celtichound. In their defence they could argue that "Entertainment" is a heading that covers the entertainment industry and that without the participation of a famous entertainer this would just be another marginal crime story of little general interest
I don't know if the distinction made by Occhi between ethical reporters and modern sensationalism ever really existed. Cynically one could say that "ethical" reporting is just another gimmick to attract readers. Moreover there wasn't a period of history during which all reporters subscribed to this
Even in Ancient Greece Homer's flamboyant style contrasts with Herodotus' more scrupulous one. Hence Homer is the more famous, despite the fact that the events Herodotus wrote of are just as vivid (the 300 Spartans, the glory days of classical Athens, etc)
I don't think we've ever not had sensationalist reporting - Swift's "A Modest Proposal" in 1729 had the same combination of sensationalism and impact as Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 and no doubt started similar heated arguments in the coffee shops of London to the debates sparked by Mr Moore's film on the internet
So how has journalism suddenly lost its ethics - compared to say the noble days of 10 years ago when Princess Di was hounded to death by headline-hungry paparazzi
I'm afraid I don't know the other two reporters, just Michael Moore
And sure, his work is selective, distorting and it is of course frustrating to be the passive spectator to a flawed argument being built on deliberately twisted evidence
I don't even think it's a bad thing, per se. You see the film, you walk out talking, discussing, arguing, finding your own truths. The audience knows he's partial, that's part of the point.
Arguably it's more honest than the "impartial" reporting of CNN, BBC. Remember there is no perfect science - the act of observation distorts the experiment and a whole chain of people distort our daily news
Of course if he says something I don't like then I'll probably join Occhi and the rest in hurling virtual eggs and tomatoes :lol:
I don't know if the distinction made by Occhi between ethical reporters and modern sensationalism ever really existed. Cynically one could say that "ethical" reporting is just another gimmick to attract readers. Moreover there wasn't a period of history during which all reporters subscribed to this
Even in Ancient Greece Homer's flamboyant style contrasts with Herodotus' more scrupulous one. Hence Homer is the more famous, despite the fact that the events Herodotus wrote of are just as vivid (the 300 Spartans, the glory days of classical Athens, etc)
I don't think we've ever not had sensationalist reporting - Swift's "A Modest Proposal" in 1729 had the same combination of sensationalism and impact as Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 and no doubt started similar heated arguments in the coffee shops of London to the debates sparked by Mr Moore's film on the internet
So how has journalism suddenly lost its ethics - compared to say the noble days of 10 years ago when Princess Di was hounded to death by headline-hungry paparazzi
I'm afraid I don't know the other two reporters, just Michael Moore
And sure, his work is selective, distorting and it is of course frustrating to be the passive spectator to a flawed argument being built on deliberately twisted evidence
I don't even think it's a bad thing, per se. You see the film, you walk out talking, discussing, arguing, finding your own truths. The audience knows he's partial, that's part of the point.
Arguably it's more honest than the "impartial" reporting of CNN, BBC. Remember there is no perfect science - the act of observation distorts the experiment and a whole chain of people distort our daily news
Of course if he says something I don't like then I'll probably join Occhi and the rest in hurling virtual eggs and tomatoes :lol: