Spoiler: every narrator is ‘unreliable’ (ie biased and subjective) - just as every real person is. Everyone sees and spins the same events a different way.
You can write omniscient narrators that state the objective truth of the story. They’re only biased in the sense that language itself is interpretive. Personally I find that to be a redundant argument.
That’s the entire point of citation, repeatable experiment, and peer review. The only way we can ever touch at reliability is cross-referential consensus.
Spoiler: every narrator is ‘unreliable’ (ie biased and subjective) - just as every real person is. Everyone sees and spins the same events a different way.
You can write omniscient narrators that state the objective truth of the story. They’re only biased in the sense that language itself is interpretive. Personally I find that to be a redundant argument.
yes but not everyone is the same distance from the objective reality of some things.
bad actors also deliberate misrepresent things to push forward an agenda, most people aren’t doing this.
For example: ICE claims they HAD to shoot Rene Good, because she was a domestic terrorist who was going to run him over.
And everybody ELSE saw the video and said ICE is full of shit.
See? Different perspectives.
That’s the entire point of citation, repeatable experiment, and peer review. The only way we can ever touch at reliability is cross-referential consensus.
Of course, consensus doesn’t automatically mean truth if the consensers aren’t all being self interrogative and critically thinking.
Certainly, but it’s the only real starting place