Rita - Luna and the Qubbler

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 169601

---  "sistermagpie" <sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
> > > Marion:
> > > Yes, but the point I think sistermagpie was making
> > > is that if Rita had printed pure bollocks, and 
> > > insulting, damaging and vicious bollocks at that, 
> > > about, say, the Malfoys, then Harry and co would've
> > > loved Rita Skeeter. ...
> > 
> > Charles:
> > 
> > ...
> 
> Charles:
> > ... No lauding the Quibbler for telling lies, no 
> > feeling of being allied with it. When Hermione
> > decides to get Harry's side of things published in
> > the Quibbler, he is hesitant. His thoughts are, and
> > I quote "[...]it would confirm a lot of people in 
> > the view that he was completely insane, not least 
> > because his story would be appearing alongside utter
> > rubbish about Crumple-Horned Snorkacks." (OOTP) 
> > Doesn't seem like too strong of an alliance to me.
> 
> Magpie:
> Rita doesn't write the stuff in the Quibbler, so the
> fact that Harry can tell it's rubbish (but doesn't 
> think that deserves punishment) is irrelevent. The 
> point was, would Harry like an article *slanted* in 
> the way that he agrees with, and frankly I see no 
> reason not to say that he would. ...
> 
> -m

bboyminn:

But, Magpie, that is exactly what makes Rita's writing
so insidious. She takes a grain of truth and completely
distorts it into what is clearly an untruth. I've 
always said the best lie was the truth selectively
told and selectively analyzed. 

Rita could write her typically twisted false story
based on a grain of truth about the Malfoys, and 
Harry and Ron would have no way of know how distorted
the story was. The same is true about the stories about
Harry, Hermione, and Hagrid. People don't know what
the truth is, which is why any journalist of any 
reasonable level of ethics tries to tell the story as
accurately as possible, and to make note of which
parts are fact and which parts are opinion. 

The news has a responsibility to the public to act 
honorably and truthfully, to the best of their ability. 
The new reporting, to some extent, is considered a 
public trust. Anytime you violate that public trust, 
regardless of whether the reader approve of what you
wrote, you have committed a severe violation of 
ethical conduct.

On the other hand, a paper like the Quibbler is so 
outrageous that no one takes it seriously. There are
real-life new publications like that, The Globe, or
some such nonsense. Publications filled with Elvis
sitings, alien babies, big foot, end of the world,
space ship landing, and crocodile men. They are 
very entertaining by no one takes them seriously.
These particular outrageous, lie don't cause any
harm, for the most part.

However, Rita's violation and distortion of the truth
is very harmful to the people involved. This is 
conscious effort on Rita's part that shows a real and
definite lack of concern for the harm caused.

It is not the truth of the matter that matters, it is
the willful willingness to cause harm and total disregard
for the harm caused that separates Rita and Luna's 
father. Luna's father's articles may cause harm, but
it is not willful harm. He really believes what he 
prints. Rita on the other hand knows perfectly well
that she is distorting the truth to the equivalent of
an outright lie.

So, in my mind whether Harry and the gang like the
hypothetical article trashing the Malfoys is irrelevant.
What matters in not the reaction of the readers, but
the full truthfulness of the writer.
 
>From the central news source in the wizarding world,
you, the reader, have a reasonable expectation of 
ethical reporting and at least a reflection of the 
truth.

Steve/bboyminn