Reporter Presupposes Reader

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Thought(s)?

I may have presupposed what you meant by 'presuppose' when you said Reporter Presupposes Reader. I assumed you meant presupposed what is in the readers mind, but you may have meant presupposed the existence of a reader (or readers). And then there was the bit about if no one is there to hear. Listeners hear. Readers hear silently unless they read out loud, so I don't know what (if anything) I should make of that.

In any event, I think it's safe to presuppose the fact that anyone actually talking about this is a fact and in fact if indeed it is a fact accomplishes the purpose of the OP.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I may have presupposed what you meant by 'presuppose' when you said Reporter Presupposes Reader. I assumed you meant presupposed what is in the readers mind, but you may have meant presupposed the existence of a reader (or readers). And then there was the bit about if no one is there to hear. Listeners hear. Readers hear silently unless they read out loud ...[text shortened]... s is a fact and in fact if indeed it is a fact accomplishes the purpose of the OP.

Is this another one of Bobby's sleuthing contests?

Originally posted by HandyAndy
Is this another one of Bobby's sleuthing contests?

Even though you thought I was someone else, I've actually only been here long enough to participate in one of those. I knew I had a good shot at winning because using google would not lend an advantage to anyone.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Even though you thought I was someone else, I've actually only been here long enough to participate in one of those. I knew I had a good shot at winning because using google would not lend an advantage to anyone.

Which one of the other players was using Google?

Originally posted by lemon lime
I may have presupposed what you meant by 'presuppose' when you said Reporter Presupposes Reader. I assumed you meant presupposed what is in the readers mind, but you may have meant presupposed the existence of a reader (or readers). And then there was the bit about if no one is there to hear. Listeners hear. Readers hear silently unless they read out loud ...[text shortened]... s is a fact and in fact if indeed it is a fact accomplishes the purpose of the OP.

Perhaps a better descriptive verb: assumes.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Generally speaking.
Why report if no one is there to hear it?

The reporter does it to be paid, not so it will be read.

Originally posted by HandyAndy
Which one of the other players was using Google?

I don't know anyone who could use Google, that was my point.

The clues were single words like Motivation and Purpose. Googling one of those words, or any combination or all of those words wouldn't get anyone anywhere if they tried using a search engine. There were 8 or 9 clues, and those clues were all single words that didn't seem to be related to one another.

That was my first clue that it had to be something we all knew or were familiar with. So the purpose of my questioning (and watching the answers to other questioners) was to try narrowing that down to find out what we all knew or were familiar with.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Perhaps a better descriptive verb: assumes.

'Assumes' rather than 'presupposes'? Oh, of course...

Reporter Assumes Reader

Okay, I get it now.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The reporter does it to be paid, not so it will be read.

Yeah, but a reporter who doesn't have any or few readers can't expect to continue getting paid. His job depends upon readership.

However...

There is a way for a reporter to get around this. Useless or badly done reports can be buried in magazines or other publications, so there's also the possibility of a reporter keeping his job simply because the publisher agrees* with him/her.


*for whatever reason... maybe the publisher just likes how the reporter smells, or the cut of his/her jib.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Generally speaking.
Why report if no one is there to hear it?

A reporter has faith that there will be someone there to read or listen to it.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Yeah, but a reporter who doesn't have any or few readers can't expect to continue getting paid. His job depends upon readership.

However...

There is a way for a reporter to get around this. Useless or badly done reports can be buried in magazines or other publications, so there's also the possibility of a reporter keeping his job simply because the ...[text shortened]... ver reason... maybe the publisher just likes how the reporter smells, or the cut of his/her jib.

Mmm, publications like Reader's Digest come to mind.

One could imagine a solipsistic journalist who doesn't really believe that their readers exist. Does the problem apply then?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Mmm, publications like Reader's Digest come to mind.

One could imagine a solipsistic journalist who doesn't really believe that their readers exist. Does the problem apply then?

I don't see how it could apply. If a reporter doesn't believe in the existence of anyone but himself, then his 'reporting' (at least in his own mind) would be no different than writing in his private diary... although in this context (no one else existing) the word 'private' would be meaningless.

I take it you don't much like Readers Digest. I've heard this before from other people, although I've never understood the reason. I'm guessing the reason might have something to do with politics or religion, or both.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I take it you don't much like Readers Digest. I've heard this before from other people, although I've never understood the reason. I'm guessing the reason might have something to do with politics or religion, or both.

Flimsy articles and tired jokes.