Just the Facts Ma'm
Liz 3: Q
“Just the Facts Ma’m” The old Dragnet approach with stoic faces collides with a new reality proclaimed by Simmons, “a story has life. Facts don’t have a life. They are inert.” Is this a fall out from the days of moral absolutes to relativism? No longer can truth be truth and perceived through logic and facts? Or perhaps, is it just a change in the delivery system? Are emotions (based on our predisposed judging systems) the only way to determine the trustworthiness of an individual or thought concept? What if our screening systems are flawed? Feelings determine the new facts? Could we be hoodwinked by such a fallacy? Subjective truth vs objectivity now prevails. Do you concur?
Labels: Liz
posted by Elizabeth @ 3:52 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I felt a similar tug as I read Chapter 3 and could not have hoped to articulate it better than you have.
I disagree with the idea facts are inert --- but, I don't suppose Simmons is off the mark either.
If she refined her context a little, we fact lovers might have an easier time grasping her thesis.
Most of her examples are best applied in the realm of persuasive speaking, with particular attention to the business world. I'm talking about one person addressing a room of listeners. In this realm, her ideas on coupling fact with story work.
On the other hand, I don't need a story to believe hydrogen and oxygen combine to make water. But that fact would more likely be shared in an educational setting, between a speaker (the teacher) and a more open-minded audience (the class).
Sure, my inner journalist bristles at some of Simmons' claims, but when I read the book in the context of business communication, it makes better sense.
It does seem as if "The Story Factor" was written for a Western, if not exclusively American audience, by the way.
Of course the screening systems could be flawed... because stories, emotions, all this stuff are objective. There are no absolutes. Everything is up for interpretation. But I also think that personal definitions of 'story' come into play here.
Even in journalism, facts are important to the story, but it is the emotion that will be remembered. I often tell my students to use sound bites from their sources to give emotion or personal perspective. The best sound bites start with the words, "I think, I feel, I believe."
The facts are best written by the reporter. You won't remember the cop telling you that the Ford Focus left the roadway and skidded 75 feet, but you should remember him saying "This is the worst accident I've seen in my 17 years on the force."
I love the emotion, but like Chad mentioned, the journalist longs for the facst to bind it to reality.
I think it's impossible to step outside our emotional intelligence and look at facts or stories objectively. We interpret little nuances in the way a fact or story is presented as embedded emotion. This in turn changes how we interpret stories. However, this isn't a flaw. It's human. There are "storytellers" out there that exploit this. Emotional intelligence is not a problem until those that exploit it make it one.
Post a Comment
<< Home