Comments on: Reporters gone wild http://blog.fagstein.com/2008/08/27/reporters-in-danger-first-person/ Can you think of a better name? Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:36:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Edna http://blog.fagstein.com/2008/08/27/reporters-in-danger-first-person/comment-page-1/#comment-39550 Edna Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:55:00 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=2497#comment-39550 Two things readers love to say: "Shit, I'm so glad that isn't me!" and "Shit, that's *exactly* like me!" Two things readers love to say: "Shit, I'm so glad that isn't me!" and "Shit, that's *exactly* like me!"

]]> By: Vincent Stephen-Ong http://blog.fagstein.com/2008/08/27/reporters-in-danger-first-person/comment-page-1/#comment-38964 Vincent Stephen-Ong Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:07:51 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=2497#comment-38964 News sources have historically attempted to remove the subjective experience from the delivery of facts, which is believed to provide a balanced look at a newsworthy story. Of course, the nature of reality is such that everything goes through the looking glass of a perceiver's personal experience tunnel, and nothing is truly objective, and thus this goal is ultimately unachievable. As a result, opinion pieces and commentators and editorials started to flourish. With the internet, half the interest is in the story and half the interest is in someone's personal take on it. This can range from the one-liner fark-style headline, or the acerbic wit of a fagstein blog entry, both of which are infinitely more entertaining than regular old "facts" with no commentary and/or personal take. News sources have historically attempted to remove the subjective experience from the delivery of facts, which is believed to provide a balanced look at a newsworthy story. Of course, the nature of reality is such that everything goes through the looking glass of a perceiver's personal experience tunnel, and nothing is truly objective, and thus this goal is ultimately unachievable. As a result, opinion pieces and commentators and editorials started to flourish. With the internet, half the interest is in the story and half the interest is in someone's personal take on it. This can range from the one-liner fark-style headline, or the acerbic wit of a fagstein blog entry, both of which are infinitely more entertaining than regular old "facts" with no commentary and/or personal take.

]]> By: Guillaume Theoret http://blog.fagstein.com/2008/08/27/reporters-in-danger-first-person/comment-page-1/#comment-38963 Guillaume Theoret Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:04:25 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=2497#comment-38963 What purpose do these first-person articles serve? They make the reader feel a personal connection to the person writing and to the paper; they create a bond. There have been other home break-ins and other roadside bombings that have been worse but gotten less coverage. Is a reporter’s first-person account better than a second-hand version given by a witness? Yes. Instead of a subjective account of a subjective experience, it's slightly more accurate. (Or perhaps more accurately embellished?) Is this a this-happens-every-day story? Yes and that's kind of the point. Or is it just a way for reporters to placate their enormous egos, a preview into their future memoirs, and an indication that things are more significant when they happen to people we know? That too, but to address the last part, they do this so that people will add the reporter and by association the gazette to the list of "people they know" and identify with. Or maybe I'm just too cynical. What purpose do these first-person articles serve?

They make the reader feel a personal connection to the person writing and to the paper; they create a bond.

There have been other home break-ins and other roadside bombings that have been worse but gotten less coverage. Is a reporter’s first-person account better than a second-hand version given by a witness?

Yes. Instead of a subjective account of a subjective experience, it's slightly more accurate. (Or perhaps more accurately embellished?)

Is this a this-happens-every-day story?

Yes and that's kind of the point.

Or is it just a way for reporters to placate their enormous egos, a preview into their future memoirs, and an indication that things are more significant when they happen to people we know?

That too, but to address the last part, they do this so that people will add the reporter and by association the gazette to the list of "people they know" and identify with.

Or maybe I'm just too cynical.

]]>