|
Craig An interesting link on this is - Onora O’Neill’s Reith lectures on Trust.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2002/
Lecture 4 is probably most relevant. She argues that openness and transparency are no use if they simply
increase the volume of unverifiable/unreliable information. She argues cogently
for less volume of disclosure but higher quality (in an academic sense)
reporting of information. I’m an accountant in another life so I have quite a lot of experience
with manipulation of information destined for the public domain. I have also written
business press releases only to see them reappear in the newspapers verbatim –
only with the journalist’s byline. What I wrote had a definite agenda - persuasion
and promotion! That’s what a press release does – it’s not what a news article
should do. Alex -----Original
Message----- Thanks
Alex, I agree completely upon reflection… I don’t buy newspapers etc, and I
think when they are reporting facts the least they can do is quote sources etc,
I guess in that respect an article should be like a good research paper. It
might be, as you suggest expecting too much from Journalists, but if they have
sources, then it shouldn’t be a problem. Unless they have something to hide…
which they probably do most of the time, lol… hidden agendas etc. I’m sure
though, that there are plenty of newspaper articles that do quote sources and
are more transparent though… (I hope?) Craig p.s I
also second Nick Clarke’s clarification that there are colleges that offer the
proper ‘Philosophy’ A level, and I guess they constitute a majority too! But
the ill conduct I drew attention to does suggest that we should still question
stats on this issue. From: owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com
[mailto:owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com] On
Behalf Of Alex Watt Craig Can
I maybe take issue with one little part of your email: “The last
point is that this issue could clearly be properly addressed if the research
methods are sorted. For instance, re-do the statistics only including properly
labelled courses, I mean, proper philosophy courses at GCSE/A Level etc, then
see how big the rise in philosophy really is. The news paper is not responsible
for this, obviously, it is their source.” The
journalist who wrote the article is responsible for it – not their source. The
article is in the journalist’s name and they should take responsibility for the
facts that they have parroted or failed to understand but nevertheless palmed
off on us. In fact, the journalist does not examine or explain the basis of
their statistics nor do they quote a source to allow anyone else to check them.
I accept that I may be setting unreasonably high standards for a journalist but
if we are expected to treat the article seriously then the standards of
reporting need to rise. I would far rather read 2,500 words of reliable well
thought out news than 25,000 words of speculation of dubious provenance. (It
probably explains why I haven’t bought a newspaper in about 3 months.) I
worry deeply about a fall in standards of journalism as it is a necessary
element of a functioning democracy. Alex -----Original
Message----- It came to my attention last term that some 6th Form colleges were
getting into trouble concerning the contents of their Philosophy courses. The
issue was that they were offering AS, A-Level “Philosophy” yet the content was
either that of Religious Studies, or Religious Studies and Ethics, and Possibly
Philosophy of Religion and Ethics... in none of these cases is it correct to
call the course Philosophy straight.
It seems that from the article, apart from the one mention of metaphysics, the
contents seem to be ethical/religious. Which is fine, (I’m neutral on that) but
NOT if its called ‘Philosophy’. I'm not denouncing Philosophy of Religion, or Ethics from
Philosophy as subjects WITHIN philosophy, I would certainly denounce Religious
Studies, that's surely for theology etc... So, the issue is that 'Rise of Philosophy' and reports on the
popularity of Philosophy at A Level are potentially very misleading, if they
are supposed to represent an inclination towards philosophy of young students.
It might just be that the inclination is more towards Religion/Ethics/Politics.
I am one who would ask what of metaphysics, philosophy of language, maths,
science, mind, psychology, history of philosophy, epistemology, logic and the
rest of it? I'm sorry that my information comes from informal talks with
tutors at my university, and I can't give you names of institutions guilty of
mislabelling, or of the enquiries by academic board’s authorities etc...
However, do a search on the net and something I'm sure will pop up, and pay
close attention to the prospectus/syllabus of individual institutions, and
judge for yourself whether the course is rightly called philosophy, or should
be named 'Ethics' or 'Religion' etc. An ironic twist, is that GCSE Advance RE
seems to be more philosophical (in syllabus content) than some A Level
"PHILOSOPHY" courses! The last point is that this issue could clearly be properly
addressed if the research methods are sorted. For instance, re-do the statistics
only including properly labelled courses, I mean, proper philosophy courses at
GCSE/A Level etc, then see how big the rise in philosophy really is. The news
paper is not responsible for this, obviously, it is their source. Not that it’d
help with public perception, I doubt that the newspapers would be inclined to
make important distinctions in content, ethics/politics, philosophy of
religion/religious studies – philosophy/all of the above… Of course, the stats
might have been produced with the proper data I recommend, but I doubt it
considering that intuitions have actually been GETTING AWAY with the
mislabelling… Even if anywhere were interested in getting proper stats for the
‘Rise of Philosophy’ I doubt it would be an easy thing, u’d get an awful lot of
relativism about how to define the subject, and I guess you’d even get those
arguing that courses that are merely ethical or religious in content are rightly labelled philosophy… oh well… I’m
not going to opine on the issue of ‘What is Philosophy’… I could offer nothing
more than intuitive reflection. Best, Craig French |