|View single post by 39th Miss. Walker|
|Posted: Wed Dec 5th, 2007 04:58 pm||
39th Miss. Walker
|We are all a product of our upbringing and lessons learned in life. We all experience different things at different times. So I can understand some bias in an author's work.
What I don't cotton to is when that author's bias is used to try and persuade the reader to his point of view, not by the neutral historical facts, but by the skewing of the historical record to support his bias.
The more widely published or popular the writer the greater the chance of fostering his point of view, his bias. The problem comes in where it is a deliberate attempt to sway the reader, instead of the historical record. Damn do I make sense?
For instance Shelby Foote said he was not a historian, just a story teller. But his telling of the story does make him a historian
A journalist to my mind uses the facts he is presented with at that time to write the narrative of the story. A historian at some time in the future uses the historical record to review and interpret the narrative. To give or provide the meaning of the historical record.
A historian in this case should be held to a higher scrutiny than the journalist.
Part of the problem we have in history is most of the works were not written by either objective journalists nor objective historians. Particularly on a subject of this where there is today still racial and regional bias in the telling of the narrative.
If one was to only be exposed to one source for the narrative then the chances are the interpretation, by the student, of the narrative would have a bias as well. That is why it is so important to seek your information from any number of sources.