While watching the local news I noticed that the understanding of the story line required somewhat of a leap of faith on my part. It was impossible to know exactly what was fact and what was shear guesswork on the part of the reporter. And, I realize that it is the media's responsibility to report the news and at the same time engage the reader/viewer. But, it became clear that I really could not tell fact from speculation. The story was simple in that a car had been located along the side of a back road and it contained a body. Although the reporter stated that she had limited information about what had happened, she went on with the story anyway. "Police will not say whether or not it was a suicide, accidental death, or some other cause for the mysterious death". So, with this tragic story, I had to ask some questions about what I should know to watch this kind of reporting which seems fairly typical.
First, there is an observation which is defined as information gained through some or all of the five senses. It can be qualitative, "there is a body in the car here on the back road " or quantitative, "there is a male body in a blue sedan, located on Green street one mile from the Watson bridge. From there, I can make an inference, about several possibilities including murder. For example, if I step outside my front door and the grass is wet, I can infer that it had rained, the sprinklers had been on, there was dew on the grass, or other reasons. An inference is a possibility based on information and prior background knowledge. But, it does not allow certainty without more information and context.
The reporter then went on to really add fluff to the story by interviewing a neighbor who did not see the car or the body, and had no valid information. "There are a lot of hunters around here and cars are always going too fast. This never happens around here". It would have been better for the reporter to have simply said that a car had been found with a body inside and we have no further information. Then tell me tomorrow what happened with certainty.
It seems that we have become familiar with, and comfortable living in a world filled with ambiguity. I believe that we could live as well with less, speculation, rumor, and guesswork. As Yogi Berra said "You can observe a lot by just watching".
First, there is an observation which is defined as information gained through some or all of the five senses. It can be qualitative, "there is a body in the car here on the back road " or quantitative, "there is a male body in a blue sedan, located on Green street one mile from the Watson bridge. From there, I can make an inference, about several possibilities including murder. For example, if I step outside my front door and the grass is wet, I can infer that it had rained, the sprinklers had been on, there was dew on the grass, or other reasons. An inference is a possibility based on information and prior background knowledge. But, it does not allow certainty without more information and context.
The reporter then went on to really add fluff to the story by interviewing a neighbor who did not see the car or the body, and had no valid information. "There are a lot of hunters around here and cars are always going too fast. This never happens around here". It would have been better for the reporter to have simply said that a car had been found with a body inside and we have no further information. Then tell me tomorrow what happened with certainty.
It seems that we have become familiar with, and comfortable living in a world filled with ambiguity. I believe that we could live as well with less, speculation, rumor, and guesswork. As Yogi Berra said "You can observe a lot by just watching".
RSS Feed
