Journalists, like scientists, are morally obliged to tell the truth. But the truth is slippery stuff. It seems to go without saying that facts must be reported accurately but it is much harder to make a clear judgement about the ‘truth’ of interpretation, which depends on who is interpreting events for whom. We all know that my terrorist can be your freedom fighter. But, sometimes even the facts don't have to be objectively true for an interpretative truth to emerge.

For instance, what should we make of the American school of ‘new’ or ‘Gonzo’ journalism espoused by American figures such as Norman Mailer, Truman Capote, Hunter S. Thompson and Tom Wolfe? All these writers reported and interpreted real events at book length, spending time with the people and institutions upon which they were reporting but writing things up with a variety of narrative, plot and character techniques drawn from fiction. In Park's early work on news, he defined it by comparing it to history, which he regarded as a different genre. The new journalists might argue that this distinction is false, that what they are doing is contemporary history. Convention says this is not news, but ‘new’ journalists argue that this is still journalism but now trying to explain events as well as report them. For clear and stimulating interpretation, events may need to be re-ordered or dressed in fictional clothes. […]