Whether the story reflects the facts is obviously a different matter.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
No matter what writers say, most stories are about ourselves. The facts might change a little, but not much.
But there's a big difference between, say, reporting on a story and simply making up a story.
The facts are always less than what really happened.
Sometimes, in a fictional story, you can be more honest and truthful, actually. As a journalist, you're a prisoner of the data, in effect. You have to tell the story with evidence you can verify.
The truth is more important than the facts.
I don't have a great respect for reality or getting the 'facts' as a means of putting together a story.
The architecture of a story can be a little bit different if it's a true story.
My sense is that, when you look at what people such as former Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein have said over the years, you don't go with a story unless you have two independent sources to confirm it.
A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth.
Stories change people while statistics give them something to argue about.
No opposing quotes found.