I’m not a big fan of the “he said”-“she said” model of journalism, which often superficially passes as something objective. And I think it can be intellectually dishonest. We’ve certainly seen this with global climate change reporting in which reporters felt that they had to report both sides and would often end up going to industry-funded scientists for the “other” side of the story. The result was that the stories often inaccurately conveyed that the industry’s rather political position against climate change findings carried exactly the same weight as a scientific consensus for them. And the result of that was, I’m afraid, to enable some of the denialism that goes on today.
So I’m not a big fan of the traditional model of “objectivity”. I try to think more about telling an honest story. To me that means doing enough research that you understand what the important points in your story might be. And then - absolutely - providing the reader with the evidence that underscores why you think those points matter.
This, and other excellent story-telling advice, from Deborah Blum.Tim Wise » Terrorism and Privilege: Understanding the Power of Whiteness
“White privilege is knowing that if the Boston bomber turns out to be white, we will not be asked to denounce him or her, so as to prove our own loyalties to the common national good.
[…]White privilege is knowing that if you are a white student from Nebraska — as opposed to, say, a student from Saudi Arabia — that no one, and I mean no one would think it important to detain and question you in the wake of a bombing such as the one at the Boston Marathon.
And white privilege is knowing that if this bomber turns out to be white, the United States government will not bomb whatever corn field or mountain town or stale suburb from which said bomber came, just to ensure that others like him or her don’t get any ideas. And if he turns out to be a member of the Irish Republican Army we won’t bomb Belfast. And if he’s an Italian American Catholic we won’t bomb the Vatican.”
Louder Than Words
“In the tenth century BC, the priests of India devised the Brahmodya competition, which would become a model of authentic theological discourse. The object was to find a verbal formula to define the Brahman, the ultimate and inexpressible reality beyond human understanding. The idea was to push language as far as it would go, until participants became aware of the ineffable. The challenger, drawing on his immense erudition, began the process by asking an enigmatic question and his opponents had to reply in a way that was apt but equally inscrutable. The winner was the contestant who reduced the others to silence. In that moment of silence, the Brahman was present - not in the ingenious verbal declarations but in the stunning realisation of the impotence of speech. Nearly all religious traditions have devised their own versions of this exercise. It was not a frustrating experience; the finale can, perhaps, be compared to the moment at the end of the symphony, when there is a full and pregnant beat of silence in the concert hall before the applause begins. The aim of good theology is to help the audience to live for a while in that silence.”
“Compromises should be avoided.” Or, power and creativity.
(Source: getbeta)
Take notes, ladies: “‘Sandwich Girl’ who puts herself in midst of crowd of boys is considered a real crumb. Girls will not invite her to hen parties and will try to act cool toward boys who formed sandwich.”
( Nina Leen—Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images)
(Source: life)
(Pictured: Butler reading a book in 1975)
“In order to rise
From its own ashes
A phoenix
First
Must
Burn.”
—Octavia Butler, Parable of the Talents
(via materialworld)
(Source: nevver)
Where are my pencil crayons?
(Source: mattlyon)
MoKoyfman Theme by Bill Israel Tumblr powered CC licensed
