A purpose of the information, regarding the paving of the path-Caicupil Cañete (or Cayucupil name given during the last decades, this tendency to change Cañete place names in the community) in the digital newspaper Lanalhue News and for journalistic use terms have allowed me to gather some research on the subject and have chosen this, belonging to Niceto Blázquez, in his book Ethics and the Media, pages 208 to 212, published in 1994 in Spain and gives us insight on the concepts of objectivity, accuracy and veracity of journalism.
"All existing codes of journalism ethics support in one form or another objective truth as the supreme ideal of good reporting. This is because it comes to meeting a basic human right of the human person and the whole society, whose interests prevail over the particulars of the informant.
Inseparable from the truth are the objectivity, accuracy and reliability (according to our criterion or training). As it condemns all forms of distortion exhaustively informative, especially the omission, exaggeration or undue emphasis and propaganda. Distortion is equivalent to what is commonly used to call handling.
should be noted that the philosophical foundations of these concepts are the same codes and the Marxist-inspired liberal. It starts with a different concept of reality, which also affects the concept of objectivity. But more or less reductionist view of reality does not substantially affect the ideal of truth advocated.
cutting Prejudice Kant and agnosticism about the truth, as if this is a meaningless concept outside the real mind or our subjective logical structures, is completely denied. Beyond the concept is equally true sophist postmodern cutting. Otherwise would be meaningless insistence that the truth always and with all the rigor that is humanly possible.
The truth of the discussed here is always a relationship of correspondence between our cognitive faculties and reality. When that relationship is between the senses and reality, truth is sensible. When is between reality and intelligence, the result is an intellectual truth, which, in turn, is said regarding objective for the thing itself and subjective relationship with the mental concept that we have formed of her.
When we describe or define what things are yours, we say that we speak with objectivity, that is, in accordance with reality or reality itself of the object in question. When we speak according to what we know only or mental conception of reality that we have formed, then we say that we are truthful. Objectivity is said by relation to the reality of the thing itself. The truth, by relation to what we know, that may be more or less right or wrong. To preclude false objective truth and subjective, mendacity and lies. Report
objectively means to speak of things as they are themselves in their own context, without any manipulation or distortion any circumstances. To be truthful, however, primarily to say what we know about the right things that we say what we know, that may not necessarily coincide with what things are exactly or pure objectivity.
From this it follows that the truth always refers to the reality as known. And as there are different orders of reality, hence the truth to be an analogous concept, which is said in many different realities. The truth is said about the cognitive faculties (intellectual truth, truth-sensitive), things, people and words. Of the truth relating to understanding the logic deals with analyzing the adequacy of intellectual faculty to the concepts we have of sorting things rationally adequate from a strictly formal. The objective truth of things, prior to and independent of our knowledge of them, is also called ontic truth, metaphysical or transcendent. It is the stark reality of beings and events. What are things that no matter how we look. Sheep, for example, did not stop being sheep for more than the imagination of Don Quixote were disturbed warriors. Is the order of being no more, prior to all knowledge. It is the reality given to us in advance and that our intelligence depends. Truth be told things. In this sense we say are true
or false. Where we talk evoke in us the real and authentic look the same as opposed to fiction. Are true because they possess the elements of its essence. Thus we speak of real gold or fake, false or real money, and so on. The truth is said also of people. Who is willing to tell the truth he knows and to the extent that he knows is true. The truth is the moral virtue of that is true. The truth is even said the words as they express the real content of things they mean. In this sense we say, for example, that this or that person has "the words of truth" either to accept what others tell us without putting any difficulty to his credibility. They are words that do not support any doubt about the truth they express.
But the truth is told also of the information. It is called informative truth. It says so in so far as is known by the subjects receiving through the media. Put another way complete, it is true reflection of reality or the reporter learns to be communicated as closely as possible to people using the mass media.
The truth may be objective information (to a greater or lesser degree), more or less true and false. False is the opposite true. Absolutely speaking, things in themselves can not be false. Being itself and truth are convertible terms. Their reality is their truth, and vice versa. Formally speaking falsehood takes place in the intellectual operation of the trial, in which there is an imbalance or mismatch between the understanding and the reality of things. In the false sense occurs only accidentally by his character as an intermediary between objects and the human cognitive faculty. They give rise to defects of perception. Falsehood itself is a mismatch between thought, belief and practical work. Also in the words may be false by mismatch between the term justification used and the intent with which the subject uses. In our case the reporter or journalist. According to the testimony of the codes, the truth is possible and the journalist should adhere to it without excuses.
Telling the truth objectively reflecting reality manipulation pure and clean is the highest ideal to which every honest journalist should aspire. Any deliberate distortion of the truth that society is entitled to know is in itself immoral, in principle, does not support this doubt. In practice however, the journalist works under such personal and environmental conditions that often knows only half true, as is known in all its breadth and objectivity, not always say it is allowed. La Prensa has earned its bad reputation in many cases by betraying the ideal of truth. But regardless of deliberately immoral use of the media, note that, in realistic terms, nor is it necessary to know all of reality to say reporting the truth, or to deceive the public requires that all it says is false. The honesty of the reporter from the moral point of view is saved always aspiring to learn and speak the truth as objectively as possible in the sense explained, and actually telling it truthfully and respect for human dignity. In other words, given the complexity of human life and the constraints they are subjected all reports, the moral honesty saved by the mere fact of being truthful in telling things as they are known after a sufficient inquiry and verification, not necessarily what he says is the absolute objective truth. Absolute objective truth is the ideal. The truth is morally possible in many cases and, therefore, what really makes except for its honesty. To compensate for the defects morally involuntary objectively codes recommend the duty to correct the information as soon as you discover the error inadvertently committed. The reporter who reports truthfully can be wrong, but morally it can not be accused of misleading the public if there was no culpable negligence and is willing to rectify. The codes indicate the ideal to which journalists should aspire by adhering unconditional objective truth, but ethics must explain how to save the integrity of reporting to the public and to justice as the achievement of the ideal is impossible in practice. I think the moral duty is fulfilled most of the time in the field of the adequacy of subjective truth or accuracy sincere willingness to rectify. The denial of the truth is the lie by which we mean to others something different than we think. The good reporter always aspires to be able to tell the public the truth about facts, events or ideas with the greatest possible degree of objectivity. That is, adapting the information to the reality of trying to inform. Absolute objectivity not always possible in practice. But there must be an objective reflection of reality or minimum and required that the informant is considered ethically right to inform. Without a minimum of objective knowledge of things, the officials said the best thing to do is shut up. Which brooks no apology is never the truth. If a minimum of objectivity is essential, the truth is in all respects inexcusable. The reporter that is untrue, misleading, and from that time lost the right to inform. Mistakes can be ethically correct. Deliberate deception is not ever. "
"All existing codes of journalism ethics support in one form or another objective truth as the supreme ideal of good reporting. This is because it comes to meeting a basic human right of the human person and the whole society, whose interests prevail over the particulars of the informant.
Inseparable from the truth are the objectivity, accuracy and reliability (according to our criterion or training). As it condemns all forms of distortion exhaustively informative, especially the omission, exaggeration or undue emphasis and propaganda. Distortion is equivalent to what is commonly used to call handling.
should be noted that the philosophical foundations of these concepts are the same codes and the Marxist-inspired liberal. It starts with a different concept of reality, which also affects the concept of objectivity. But more or less reductionist view of reality does not substantially affect the ideal of truth advocated.
cutting Prejudice Kant and agnosticism about the truth, as if this is a meaningless concept outside the real mind or our subjective logical structures, is completely denied. Beyond the concept is equally true sophist postmodern cutting. Otherwise would be meaningless insistence that the truth always and with all the rigor that is humanly possible.
The truth of the discussed here is always a relationship of correspondence between our cognitive faculties and reality. When that relationship is between the senses and reality, truth is sensible. When is between reality and intelligence, the result is an intellectual truth, which, in turn, is said regarding objective for the thing itself and subjective relationship with the mental concept that we have formed of her.
When we describe or define what things are yours, we say that we speak with objectivity, that is, in accordance with reality or reality itself of the object in question. When we speak according to what we know only or mental conception of reality that we have formed, then we say that we are truthful. Objectivity is said by relation to the reality of the thing itself. The truth, by relation to what we know, that may be more or less right or wrong. To preclude false objective truth and subjective, mendacity and lies. Report
objectively means to speak of things as they are themselves in their own context, without any manipulation or distortion any circumstances. To be truthful, however, primarily to say what we know about the right things that we say what we know, that may not necessarily coincide with what things are exactly or pure objectivity.
From this it follows that the truth always refers to the reality as known. And as there are different orders of reality, hence the truth to be an analogous concept, which is said in many different realities. The truth is said about the cognitive faculties (intellectual truth, truth-sensitive), things, people and words. Of the truth relating to understanding the logic deals with analyzing the adequacy of intellectual faculty to the concepts we have of sorting things rationally adequate from a strictly formal. The objective truth of things, prior to and independent of our knowledge of them, is also called ontic truth, metaphysical or transcendent. It is the stark reality of beings and events. What are things that no matter how we look. Sheep, for example, did not stop being sheep for more than the imagination of Don Quixote were disturbed warriors. Is the order of being no more, prior to all knowledge. It is the reality given to us in advance and that our intelligence depends. Truth be told things. In this sense we say are true
or false. Where we talk evoke in us the real and authentic look the same as opposed to fiction. Are true because they possess the elements of its essence. Thus we speak of real gold or fake, false or real money, and so on. The truth is said also of people. Who is willing to tell the truth he knows and to the extent that he knows is true. The truth is the moral virtue of that is true. The truth is even said the words as they express the real content of things they mean. In this sense we say, for example, that this or that person has "the words of truth" either to accept what others tell us without putting any difficulty to his credibility. They are words that do not support any doubt about the truth they express.
But the truth is told also of the information. It is called informative truth. It says so in so far as is known by the subjects receiving through the media. Put another way complete, it is true reflection of reality or the reporter learns to be communicated as closely as possible to people using the mass media.
The truth may be objective information (to a greater or lesser degree), more or less true and false. False is the opposite true. Absolutely speaking, things in themselves can not be false. Being itself and truth are convertible terms. Their reality is their truth, and vice versa. Formally speaking falsehood takes place in the intellectual operation of the trial, in which there is an imbalance or mismatch between the understanding and the reality of things. In the false sense occurs only accidentally by his character as an intermediary between objects and the human cognitive faculty. They give rise to defects of perception. Falsehood itself is a mismatch between thought, belief and practical work. Also in the words may be false by mismatch between the term justification used and the intent with which the subject uses. In our case the reporter or journalist. According to the testimony of the codes, the truth is possible and the journalist should adhere to it without excuses.
Telling the truth objectively reflecting reality manipulation pure and clean is the highest ideal to which every honest journalist should aspire. Any deliberate distortion of the truth that society is entitled to know is in itself immoral, in principle, does not support this doubt. In practice however, the journalist works under such personal and environmental conditions that often knows only half true, as is known in all its breadth and objectivity, not always say it is allowed. La Prensa has earned its bad reputation in many cases by betraying the ideal of truth. But regardless of deliberately immoral use of the media, note that, in realistic terms, nor is it necessary to know all of reality to say reporting the truth, or to deceive the public requires that all it says is false. The honesty of the reporter from the moral point of view is saved always aspiring to learn and speak the truth as objectively as possible in the sense explained, and actually telling it truthfully and respect for human dignity. In other words, given the complexity of human life and the constraints they are subjected all reports, the moral honesty saved by the mere fact of being truthful in telling things as they are known after a sufficient inquiry and verification, not necessarily what he says is the absolute objective truth. Absolute objective truth is the ideal. The truth is morally possible in many cases and, therefore, what really makes except for its honesty. To compensate for the defects morally involuntary objectively codes recommend the duty to correct the information as soon as you discover the error inadvertently committed. The reporter who reports truthfully can be wrong, but morally it can not be accused of misleading the public if there was no culpable negligence and is willing to rectify. The codes indicate the ideal to which journalists should aspire by adhering unconditional objective truth, but ethics must explain how to save the integrity of reporting to the public and to justice as the achievement of the ideal is impossible in practice. I think the moral duty is fulfilled most of the time in the field of the adequacy of subjective truth or accuracy sincere willingness to rectify. The denial of the truth is the lie by which we mean to others something different than we think. The good reporter always aspires to be able to tell the public the truth about facts, events or ideas with the greatest possible degree of objectivity. That is, adapting the information to the reality of trying to inform. Absolute objectivity not always possible in practice. But there must be an objective reflection of reality or minimum and required that the informant is considered ethically right to inform. Without a minimum of objective knowledge of things, the officials said the best thing to do is shut up. Which brooks no apology is never the truth. If a minimum of objectivity is essential, the truth is in all respects inexcusable. The reporter that is untrue, misleading, and from that time lost the right to inform. Mistakes can be ethically correct. Deliberate deception is not ever. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment