never let facts ruin a good story

This statement suggests that stories can be a form of escapism or entertainment. We might be more interested in the narrative flow, the characters, and the overall mood of a story. If we always insisted on strict factualness, many great stories, such as fairy tales or science - fiction epics, would lose their magic. Facts can be constraining, while a good story allows for creativity and imagination to run wild.

Sure. In the movie 'Jurassic Park'. There are many scientific inaccuracies. Dinosaurs couldn't actually be re - created in the way shown in the movie with the current technology. But these inaccuracies don't stop the movie from being an amazing story full of adventure and wonder.

It means that sometimes people prefer a fictional or exaggerated version of a story rather than the version based strictly on facts. They don't want the cold, hard facts to disrupt the interesting or exciting narrative they have in mind.

It basically means that sometimes you should focus on the entertainment or appeal of a story rather than getting too hung up on whether everything is strictly factual.

Hearst could be a reference to the Hearst Corporation, a large media company. They have a long history in media, so perhaps in this context, it's related to their practices or an attitude that was once prevalent within the company.

Basically, 'never let the facts spoil a good story' is about the idea that a story's allure can be more important than its factual basis. In journalism, this would be unethical, but in creative writing or casual storytelling, it can be different. Think of tall tales or legends. These often deviate from the facts but are still great stories. People might change details or events to fit the mood or message they want to convey in their story. For instance, a fisherman might exaggerate the size of the fish he caught to make his fishing story more exciting for his friends at the pub.

Sometimes facts can disrupt the flow and imagination of a story. If they don't fit well or are presented in a dry way, it can take away from the enjoyment.

In general, it's not a good principle for all types of writing. While in fictional storytelling, it can add an element of fun and creativity, in other areas it's unacceptable. Consider historical fiction. You can take some liberties with minor details to make the story flow better, but you can't completely distort historical facts. In contrast, in a research report, the facts are the foundation, and any deviation from them would render the work invalid. So, it's a principle that should be used very selectively.

It could imply that Hearst (perhaps a media entity or person named Hearst) has an attitude of not allowing facts to disrupt a story that they consider 'good'. Maybe they prioritize the narrative or entertainment value over strict factual accuracy.

He meant that sometimes in storytelling, strict adherence to facts can limit creativity. A good story might be more engaging if it bends or ignores some facts for the sake of entertainment or making a point.