Posting to a web log involves choices I never imagined. I prefer fact-based and reasoned analysis of Insurance Issues to opinions. You know what they say about opinions. Everybody has one of those, also.
Fact-based and reasoned analysis of Insurance Issues, in turn, involves time. Lots of time. That is why most of my posts, and probably all of my early posts here, are detailed. Some are downright long. Can you imagine the amount of time it took to write those posts?
Recently, I have experimented with providing some analysis and still providing facts for readers, but limiting my reporting to newly decided cases and leaving the discussion of overall trends to others for the most part. This is not unique to me. Others have noted the distinction between reporting and most 'blogging'.
One commentator recently wrote a thought-provoking column about the differences between posts on a web log, and reporting news. Here is a link to "Blogs: All the Noise That Fits/The Hard-Line Opinions on Weblogs Are No Substitute for the Patient Fact-Finding of Reporters" by Michael Skube (The Los Angeles Times, Sunday, August 19, 2007).
My readers can make their own minds up about two recent reports which address Insurance Issues, as to where facts might end and opinions begin--if opinions are expressed at all in these recent reports in two different media. Here is a link to Bloomberg.com for an article by David Dietz and Darrell Preston, "Home Insurers' Secret Tactics Cheat Fire Victims, Hike Profits" ("Last Updated August 3, 2007").
And here is a link to the Friday, August 17, 2007 broadcast on NOW on the Public Broadcasting System: "Home Insurance 9-1-1".
Which one, either, or both displays the facts vs. opinions?
Please Read The Disclaimer.
Comments