Hacker News Reader

Comment by joe_the_user | Hacker News Reader

Both Mike Daisy and "Kony2012" really ask the question, "why do we need a character actor to tell us facts when we could be using journalists?"

When people are addicting to having situations digested into entertaining pap, we should be surprised that truth suffers.

View on HN

Are you suggesting that journalists promote greater truth than entertainers? Have you read the news lately? Truth isn't limited to mere factual correctness.

Indeed. I often like to think of the difference been The Daily Show and Fox News. The former is often as insightful, accurate and ethically-oriented as good journalism -- but officially presented as comedy and entertainment. The latter is elite-serving propaganda thinly disguised as "for the little guy" journalism and low-brow patriotism.

I understand the line of argument that essentially goes "Daisey still highlights a situation that needs to be addressed", but that is fundamentally different from suggesting that factual correctness somehow doesn't matter. Indeed, Daisey is perhaps one of the most obvious examples of why factual correctness does matter, because all of his falsehoods seem to stem from an egotistical desire to paint him as the savior of China's oppressed worker. So while Daisey's overall point is true, it remains that a fundamental part of it- specifically the role of Mike Daisey- is completely false, and, insofar as it really amounts to Daisey attempting to stroke his own ego, it really is tremendously disgusting.

I find the behaviour repugnant. But the message is being overshadowed by the messenger.

That's true in the sense that factual correctness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for truth.

Take-away: Whether you're a journalist or not, if you're telling people a story that purports to be true, it needs to actually be true. Even in the case of 'pure' entertainers.

What about the truth elucidated in philosophy, religion and even fiction? It's not like philosophers ever obtain "factual" status, and yet there is tremendous truth in many philosophical works.

Perhaps I should have said it this way: If you're telling a story that purports to be factually true, it needs to actually be factually true.

Fiction by definition doesn't purport to factually be true, so that's ok. Most philosophy doesn't, either. Most or all religious texts do, and so most or all religious texts fail my test.

Am suggesting that entertainers don't have to put forward the literal and a literal, factual truth is sometimes crucial. Sure "other truths" are very important also but they can't substitute for factual correctness.

Obviously, also, I mean actually journalists rather than those who play them on TV (Fox News etc).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com