Fact based reality

Joho points off to a great essay by Jay Rosen that delves into issues of journalistic ethics. As Joho notes:

"First, I love: 'If you teach journalism ethics too near the surface of the practice, you end up with superficial journalists.' Brilliant. But I want to head off what I think is an unwarranted conclusion based on Jay's statement that if you put together enough accurate reports, the world is intelligible. The wrong conclusion (not Jay's) would be that we all come to the same intelligible world. Nope. The PoMos are right: Narratives don't get built out of facts. Narratives tell us which facts matter. Within a narrative, it's important that journalistic reports be accurate. But accuracy is not enough to bring about intelligibility or to tear down an existing intelligibility. (If, by the Law of Irony, I have in fact inaccurately characterized Jay's point about accuracy, I preemptively apologize.)"

I think this is a key point, that accuracy alone is not enough to create intelligibility. But what does? And within a religious mindview, what are our own ethics in terms of shaping narratives? We claim to "have" the truth, but indeed it's more accurate to suggest that we build truthful and truth-filled narratives together. So what does that mean when the narratives we're building are truth-claims entwined with scripture?