Commentary Reply

It has been suggested by an anonymous contributor that I, according to some folks, may not live in the real world. It was in reference to yesterday's blog about politicians.

I acknowledge that that may be true based on my fortunate life and career experiences, but I would also submit that my life is far different from that of a politicians and therefore the same criteria does not apply and therefore neither does the readers argument.

Having said that, I want to reemphasize to all readers of this blog, that I offer only opinions that are based on flawed observations and Pollyanna hopes. Not one of us is perfect. With that in mind I do think it is important for observers of the times, journalists if you will, to offer alternative ways of looking at the seemingly sordid and sober vignettes of life and under the guise of commentary suggest ways of changing things.

No suggestion is ever an absolute. All it should be is to open a window of thought that might not have appeared in the initial personal analysis of the issue.

An important distinction here is that I am referring to observational commentary, not to news reporting. 

In news reporting no opinion should be evident, suggested or even tangential to the story. The reader, the viewer, the listener should have only the facts as the reporter as ascertained them and he or she should present them in a fair manner for the reader, the viewer and the listener to assimilate and make an educated judgment or decision. That is what reporting should strive for, that is the ideal. Obviously it is not always that way.

A free press must be free, but held to account. The truth can only emerge under a banner of freedom. The story, the truth, the facts may be flawed initially, but eventually the true story will out. Under a controlled press that is not possible.