Perhaps a sweeping judgement by me - but as wsieber points out, there is virtually an infinite number of details attached to any event. Not all can be recorded, and even fewer can be reported. Who decides what? The reporter as editor, presumably. On what basis does the reporter decide? On his/her particular historical theory.
For instance, a public figure is assassinated. There is only one reporter on the scene.
1. The reporter has a Marxist view of history. The public figure is described in terms of his status in the class structure. The act is de-individualised, being represented as the 'will' of a class of people bubbling up and taking concrete shape. If this is the only report published, posterity will know nothing of the individual assassin.
2. The reporter follows something like the 'great man' theory of history. His/her report takes the shape of a Hegelian dialectic piece - the Emperor and the Assassin, a comparison of their individual lives. Posterity sees what appears to be a personal grudge between Gavrillo Princip and Archduke Ferdinand (or John Wilkes Both and Abraham Lincoln - pick your favourite pair).
I'm not sure if this is an ironclad argument in favour of the notion that history is inevitably skewed by the editorial bias of the reporter, but I think it's a pretty strong case...
cheer
the sunshine warrior
