Re: Third Party Comments
At 12:44 PM 1-16-98, Mike Machnik wrote:
> As with anything the truth lies in the middle...
No, the truth lies around, under, between, upside down, right side up, etc..
Truth depends wholly on its place of origin. The issue was using language to
paint a negative picture.
>Maybe because we think people will learn something.
Whether we're parents or just fans or reporters each will see it from their
place of origin. (-: What I know is both parents and fans are usually quite
knowledgeable about hockey. But, if they were in a gab fest with a bunch of
reporters or scouts you'd have to a large extent opposing opinion.
>the job of the BLACK BEAR fan is to do just that, watch the game from their
>perspective and pay attention to "will they or won't they."
>It's our job to know both sides.
You seem to infer from my statement that fans are not capable of seeing
without total-out-of-control bias and that they are not knowlegeable enough,
in your mind, and are incapable of making a call on their own team. What I
meant by this statement was that more than just not being committed to
neutrality, many fans
do possess a very good knowledge of the mistakes made in a game. Obviously,
they don't have to report about it—but that doesn't mean their incapable of
rational knowledgeable deductions.
>It takes two to play a game.
I don't think anyone here needs a lesson in Hockey 101! (-:
OK, I concede, yup, it takes two to do a lot of things. (-:
> And, they often take it personally when you suggest that those mistakes had
something to do with the goal that was scored. But, that doesn't change
reality.
Both Mike and Dave use this term way too loosely for me. Whose reality is the
point!
>And, perhaps we do take it personally when it is suggested we are biased or
against one team.
Bias was never a term I used. Negative reporting was, not seeing the Bears'
performance as positive because they played in a defensive mode. Even though
I've stated this several times it seems as if non-communication is the rule
here. Each of us seeing, perhaps our own *reality* based on what we've seen or
read. You see bias and I see negativity.
The REALITY (which you guys brought up first) is that your reality of the game
is not the defining perception any more than ours is. What you describe
yourself as, or how you are identified with, reporter, fan....we are both
observing from different directions. You see it from the left side of the
arena, we see it from the right....even those details of physical position can
change the reality of what was observed....forgetting all the other
infinitesimal variables.
> Then it is our job to sort it out, allow both sides to be heard, and come up
with what really happened.
There you go again...taking reality and bending it...well in your direction,
just as much as I might bend it in mine. So, what really happened then is for
everyone to determine for himself ultimatley....it's not at all a case of
middle ground. It's everyone's job to attempt to describe his or her own
reality.
I don't prescribe to total objectivity as the total package to reality. This
seems to be what Mike is selling. I'm not buying. No one can be totally
objective or unbiased of opinion and that includes reporters who have to do
their best to mask that opinion in a mass of their own version of objective
reality. (-:
The issue of reality was first brought up in Dave's post. The dictionary
defintion of the word is: the state or quality of being real or existing in
fact. Loose terms to cover a very broad subject matter! (-: Even the
dictionary doesn't have a handle on what reality is. So, why would I want to
heed Dave and Mike's version of it?
(-:
Vicki Price
|
