Fiction vs History?

[Paul Mackin]

On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 06:11, Peter Fellows-McCully wrote:
> So what would it take then, for you to believe something reported by Fox
> news, say, in 10 years' time? Suppose, (and it's a pretty big
> supposition) that Fox news started to change its style, values and
> reporting to a way that more suited your values. How many instances of
> reporting in the "new" style would it take before you started evaluating
> their output in a different light.
> 
> And moving back, rather than forward, in time, if an historian today
> makes an assertion of a past "fact", is it more, or less true in the
> light of your interpretations of that historian's previous assertions?
> 

I don't know right off but will think about it.

I don't watch Fox News and should have used some other example.

P.




> pfm
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org 
> > [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On Behalf Of Paul Mackin
> > Sent: 27 October 2004 00:36
> > To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> > Subject: Re: Fiction vs History?
> > 
> > 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.  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >