[991] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
objective facts (was: Thank you for your comments)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bob Sutterfield)
Mon Jul 15 10:15:05 1991
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 91 10:13:19 -0400
From: Bob Sutterfield <bob@morningstar.com>
To: alan@curta.cc.columbia.edu
Cc: sob@tmc.edu, edtjda@magic322.chron.com, com-priv@psi.com,
In-Reply-To: Alan Crosswell's message of Mon, 15 Jul 91 9:43:52 EDT <CMM.0.90.0.679585432.alan@curta.cc.columbia.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 91 9:43:52 EDT
From: Alan Crosswell <alan@curta.cc.columbia.edu>
It's impossible to objectively report facts
You could have stopped there. There can be no observation of events
without the interposition of the observing individuals' personal
cognitive filters. This unavoidably creates personal bias.
Put another way, you and I can stand next to each other on the same
street corner with our eyes full open and witness the same automobile
collision. Later, we can swear under oath in court that we saw what
might by then seem to be two entirely different events. We can each
be convinced that we're accurately and objectively and completely
reporting the incident, but we're really only relating (in good faith)
what we saw and remembered.
And that's not all bad, because different folks make the world an
interesting place to live. I'm often glad that my wife and I see
things differently - that's why we complement each other so well.
without making it dull reading.
Even the driest history textbooks, the sort that contain only a
recitation of names, dates, and events, are implicitly interpretive.
There's always something that was left out, either because the dust of
time has obscured it (What was Gutenberg's wife's maiden name? Can
you be entirely sure, just because you don't know anyone who knows it,
that her family history had no bearing on his contribution to
history?) or because the limits of available space dictated editorial
selectivity.
Now, I think that Mr Abernathy's story of last summer tended a bit to
the wild-eyed sensationalist, and I'm disappointed that he seems
reluctant to acknowledge the consensus of the community about which he
was reporting. But, as Mr Crosswell points out, we should never be
surprised at something we see in the papers. They might just have
seen things differently than we did.
