I read a post today that said one of the ways they cross-check the data for accuracy is to talk to "close associates" so that the "records can be set" as to historical accuracy - or so I read between those lines.
I find this faulty at best and plain old "stupid" at worst. One of my pet peeves is tribal mentality where the particular belief is "written in stone" regardless of its accuracy or historical records - records that are questionable even on Okinawa since records on martial arts were not kept.
I am not saying the close associates are wrong. I am not saying they are right. What I am saying is to rely on "close associates" who are already in that particular "belief system" are not reliable. Even "news reporters" must validate and verify source material from independent sources which to me means sources that are reliable, believable and also verifiable other than the person or persons involved in the story itself.
If I were to tell you in my dojo that Shimabuku Tatsuo Sensei told me that I was to be his American certified "master of Isshinryu" and all of my students, practitioners or deshi - you choose the title - came to believe this then anyone who wanted to verify the truth and accuracy would find it validated by talking to "close associates" to get the record straight might find that it lacks the ability to "hold water."
I will say once more, when you read or hear or see something that seems believable and triggers your sense of "cool" and "need to assimilate" it behooves you to go outside "close associates" and find some form of validation for correctness and factual believability that is not vested in the belief system or the person or the article through association with that dojo, organizational hierarchal and governing bodies.
The moment we don't stop ourselves from believing with little or no questioning because it fits some perception or belief we do ourselves and our practitioners a disservice and stunt the growth potential of the system - especially in martial arts where it could mean damage to the individual.
It might better serve if the folks who publish in an official format, i.e. magazines both printed and electronic, they take on the responsibility that is required of reporters such as for the major newspapers and television news departments - get at least two corroborating sources other than close associates of the parties or party in question, etc.
After all, in order for context to remain objective it must be neutral. To fail in providing truth in reporting, officially reporting through valid systems such as newspapers and television news, we must attempt to fairly and objectively provide reports that inform readers of factual information. Even then it is incumbent on the reader to go a step further and also seek out objective sources that ether verify or disqualify report information and claims.
I quote, "The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards
To seek such validation through "close associates" leads to seeking verification of theft or no theft directly from the thief caught in the act by asking his associates who are also caught in the act to verify the innocence or guilt of the thief. How would that go in our system of justice and isn't this the crux of the issue?
The question arises, "Is this blog or any blog reporting?" As to this blog I would say no it is not reporting. I look at a blog as a personal commentary of the subject of the blog. A commentary still has some responsibility but in the end it is merely an opinion, a viewpoint or the perceptive filtering written results of thoughts, idea's and beliefs. All are subject to commenting and it is important that what is given as an opinion here be as accurate and as correct as possible. Where I feel the rubber hits the road is when it can be shown that something needs adjustment, correction or additional information it be done in an addendum with links to the original post if not one or two posts before the addendum is posted.
No comments:
Post a Comment