Fiction vs History?

[Paul Mackin]

On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 17:27, MalignD at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/24/04 8:56:41 AM, paul.mackin at verizon.net
> writes:
> 
> 
> > <<In this present US election cycle an analogy of the difference
> > between history and fiction might be seen in the political coverage
> > of a news journalist.  When Bush says something exaggerated or
> > completely fabricated about Kerry, and in the same news cycle Kerry
> > points to a recorded fact about the Bushs misdeeds, should the
> > reporter proceed to just parrot both statements in a he-said/he-said
> > manner?  I guess the answer depends on what the journalists mission
> > is.  Does he have a responsibility to point out which statements are
> > contrary to fact?  I think so.  Are lies indistinguishable from
> > fact?  No,  Neither is history indistinguishable from fiction.>>
> 
> No offense, but this is weak on a number of levels; substituting
> journalism--and the worst sort of "journalism" at that--for history
> only the most flagrant weakness.
> 

I don't know who wrote the incoming but it can't have been me. It gets
off on the wrong foot--fiction and history are incomparable except in a
forced academic way--but the post doesn't end up so bad. Depends on
which segment of journalism is reporting the story. If it's Fox News I
wouldn't trust them to do anything.

The thing you can say about fiction is, it can't tell the truth, it
can't lie, it can't make a mistake. The only kind of "truth" fiction can
tell is some moral or ideological truth. History can tell at least a
reason approximation of the facts.

A lot of times lately the incoming message is attributed to the wrong
person. Fortunately one can tell from long experience who is and who
isn't likely to have said what.