%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 |    My random thoughts and reactions to my everyday life. The voices like a forum. |
| I do not know quite what happened or when , but my hubby and I now qualify for seniors' discounts at some venues. This creates a quandary; in order to save money, but not face, we have to admit to our age. HMMMM..... We definitely do not consider ourselves to be old. In this day and age ,when people as a whole are living longer and healthier lives why are 'young seniors', those in their fifties, like moi, considered 'old'?? It's so true that age is just a perception! "Maturity" is very objective/subjective, and I object! Whew, a few years have skittered by since I composed this biography block. Those "fifties" are in the rear view mirror and they are distant, fond memories. Oh, I do not plan to stop writing any time soon. |
| PROMPT July 6th Is there such a thing as “unbiased reporting?” (Consider not just journalism, but storytelling - is it possible to tell a story without bias?) Simple answer? No. We are all creatures with our own unique biases. Everything we see / witness/ experience is coloured by our perceptions, our position both as a vantage point and our beliefs, and our emotions. Imagine a vehicle crash on a busy thoroughfare. Plenty of passersby watched it unfold and they have an eyewitness account to share. Are they all drivers? Do they understand acceleration, steering, avoidance techniques, braking and more? Do they all recognize makes and models of vehicles? Do they know with any accuracy the speed that the vehicle achieved? Could they guesstimate? Did they notice the actions of other drivers? Did they see where the vehicle travelled from and where it seemed to be going? Were other vehicles involved? Are they aware of traffic signals and where they are placed? Are they all calm, cool and collected without the impairment of adrenalin and /or shock? What were they doing when the accident occurred? Were they distracted by cellphone use, a child, a fellow witness, something on the street or sidewalk, the weather, a stumble, or any other thing? What language are they comfortable speaking? Do they embellish or exaggerate? Eye witnesses are rarely reliable. Each of us notice and zero in on different details or aspects. Some may dismiss and discount the clothing they viewed on a suspect/ person of interest. Some may not see distinguishing markings such as scars or tattoos. Not everyone is able to describe another's ethnicity and some bristle at its very idea. is it necessary or relevant? Did the witnesses see the accident unfold, or did they witness its aftermath? Are some witnesses assuming what must have happened based on what they see afterwards? One witness could describe the vehicle as a red Ford and an older model. Another could insist the vehicle was a burgundy Ford Taurus with considerable dents and rust, but actually a brand new car. Yet another would insist the vehicle was a Subaru painted brown with a rear passenger door painted a different colour. Perhaps all three of these people did not notice the driver at all. Could another witness insist a woman was the driver simply because they made an assumption based upon seeing long hair? Did any of them notice the tires and rims? Could they describe the other vehicles? Perhaps the offending driver that caused the accident drove away and was not noticed at all. The use of language colours our reporting and stories. There are many meanings and nuances attached to our words. What is our understanding and use of words? To state that a car whipped down the street implies it was travelling at a high rate of speed which is then understood as speeding. Did the witness exaggerate because he/she is not a driver and has never handled a vehicle? Did they perceive speed because the car moved faster than they did? Do they resent vehicle traffic and view it as annoying, unsafe, loud? Could the car have been speeding? Even a car obeying the posted speed limit is a metal object propelled along a road. How is that rate of motion perceived? To claim a driver slammed on the brakes implies they failed to notice they needed to stop. This connotates panic or inattentiveness. To describe a vehicle as having swerved instead of steered around or avoided induces more drama. Insisting that a car barrelled down the road implies it forced its way amongst traffic by brute force, size and weight. I am about to share a true story, and yes, of course it will bear my own bias in the retelling. There are indisputable facts and here they are. My husband and our sixteen-year old granddaughter drove about forty-five kilometres along a secondary highway. Syd was the newbie driver and her grandfather rode shot gun. Oops, there's my bias . He sat in the front passenger seat next to Syd. At no time did they crash, leave the road, or hit anything. Arriving in town, my husband directed Syd to a vehicle tire shop where she parked our truck and waited while my hubby went inside. He hurried outside when three police vehicles surrounded our truck. Three officers demanded to see Syd's licence and shouted at her. Her grandfather inserted himself into the tense confrontation. They claimed they'd received a call from a concerned driver about a truck swerving all over the road at an excessive speed. They accused Syd of driving while intoxicated. They claimed she was a menace. The concerned caller claimed Syd had been driving alone and looked underage. First of all, the officers could clearly ascertain Syd's age from her licence so why did they accuse her of deceit and deception? They insisted she was misrepresenting herself. They could ascertain she had not been imbibing alcohol from her demeanour. There had been no reported accidents or vehicles forced off the road. She had not been alone in the truck as the caller claimed. As a new driver she and my hubby knew she could not yet legally drive alone. Our addresses were clearly represented on both the licences and the truck's registration, so how had my hubby appeared so quickly when the police arrived? He clearly had not walked to that tire shop. My hubby refused to back down and argued his points. The concerned caller phoned in a complaint from a vehicle on the highway. Did the officers know for a fact if that driver used a handheld phone which is illegal to use while driving, or was a blue tooth used? Why were they believing the unsubstantiated claim of an anonymous person? How could that caller have not seen him sitting in the front seat? How could that caller have assumed Syd's age and the level of a driver's licence she possessed? The caller had supposedly noted the colour and make of the truck, but had not noted its identifying plates. Was this even the suspect truck? And, exactly what laws had Syd violated? In the end, the officers backed down and left. Good ol' bias was at work then. |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
