Fake Objectivity

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How can you determine who clearly has truth on their side if you don't get a presentation of all sides.

Research?

It's hard and time consuming to do in-depth investigation. It's a lot easier and quicker to find two people who disagree and have them make their cases, whether those cases are valid or not.

It's a lot like how a lot of news outlets are closing their foreign offices: it's way cheaper and easier to just use a wire service.

 

[Willamena]

I notice these days that it's quite popular to indulge oneself in the intellectually dishonest practice of faking objectivity. The media seems to be especially addicted to faking objectivity.

That is, the truth might be clearly on the side on x, but the media will go out of its way to give equal time to not-x on the grounds that doing so is being objective.

Balderdash! Being objective has nothing necessarily to do with merely giving equal time to two opposing points of view. Being objective -- truly objective -- demands that you side with the truth. You simply cannot be objective while pretending that a falsehood has equal weight as a truth.

But what do you think?

They're not faking objectivity, they're just failing objectivity.

 

[Mister Emu]

Research?

It's hard and time consuming to do in-depth investigation.

And thus the old-guard falls. If I am going to do the research then I don't need the media at all.

I expect, and pay for in time and/or money, a factual article that objectively looks at the case for and against something and if discussing or impacting a living person or organization of such giving them the right of response or, if they refuse to respond, a pointer to them.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have 10 metaphorical british pounds saying that this thread will end with a witch hunt for the devil who is perveying falsehood and immorality on the earth!

any takers?

I wouldn't bet even my most decrepit frubal against you.
Objectivity is a fleeting quality, & there is no faction on any side of an agenda to own it.
Sure, I observe that some will be more objective than others at times.
But opponents will claim that it's the opposite side which is more objective.
It often boils down to this....
"I'm right, so anyone who disagrees is illogical & subjective."
It's still a stalemate.

Examples:
1) I'll take a pro evolution stance on some issue.
Someone else will argue against it based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory.
They'll say I'm the one being subjective.
2) I'll take a view on economics.
Often, there is no right or wrong....just different preferences.
Subjectivity rules both sides.

So what's a fella to do?
One tries to have the best discussion one can.
If we see objectivity failures in the media, we can try to influence them for the better.
I've done this with The History Channel.
That led to my being here.
Is it fair that RF should suffer for THC's sins?
No, but so it goes.

There's a frubal for the first person to say who I'm quoting in that last line.

 

[icehorse]

- I share Sunstone's frustration here (if I interpret it correctly), that to be overly pedantic about "100% pure objectivity" is a red herring.

- I like Luis's recasting to "intellectual honesty". That might be a more difficult perspective for perpetrators to sidestep.

John Oliver did a great bit on this when he brought 100 scientists on stage, 97 of whom were in the climate change camp, and 3 of whom were deniers. This is in contrast to media that puts one denier up against one believer, as if that's objective. When a media outlet does that sort of statistically skewed setup, they are not being intellectually honest. Full stop.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And thus the old-guard falls. If I am going to do the research then I don't need the media at all.

I expect, and pay for in time and/or money, a factual article that objectively looks at the case for and against something and if discussing or impacting a living person or organization of such giving them the right of response or, if they refuse to respond, a pointer to them.

I meant that the journalist should do research to confirm what the truth is, and then present it to the public, rather than giving everyone their few minutes and then metaphorically shrugging.

But of course you shouldn't rely on the media. Even the best reporter isn't an expert on everything they cover, so they're going to miss (or misinterpret) nuances.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you walked into a room and saw a dude pissing on a cat, what would your immediate thought be?

"Was the cat on fire?"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I notice these days that it's quite popular to indulge oneself in the intellectually dishonest practice of faking objectivity. The media seems to be especially addicted to faking objectivity.

That is, the truth might be clearly on the side on x, but the media will go out of its way to give equal time to not-x on the grounds that doing so is being objective.

Balderdash! Being objective has nothing necessarily to do with merely giving equal time to two opposing points of view. Being objective -- truly objective -- demands that you side with the truth. You simply cannot be objective while pretending that a falsehood has equal weight as a truth.

But what do you think?

I agree with you. So does the BBC:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...inviting-cranks-on-to-science-programmes.html

 

[Scott C.]

There is such a thing as Journalistic Objectivity, which is different from philosophical objectivity.

Journalistic Objectivity requires reporting only the facts, not colored by personal opinion. (Facts over values) (This can be contrasted with Op-Ed pieces, even if said op-ed pieces are given equal time for dissenting values/opinions.)

Agree.

 

[Scott C.]

Judgement is inevitable in media. Just the act of pointing a camera at something implicitly says "the things inside this frame are important in a way that the things outside it aren't."

The act of giving equal time to both sides doesn't get rid of judgement; it asserts the judgement that both sides have equal merit.

I agree. It's hard to be perfectly objective. It seems the media often does not even try.

 

[LuisDantas]

How can you determine who clearly has truth on their side if you don't get a presentation of all sides.

The truth is often well-established enough, at least for practical purposes and within the reasonable parameters of the presentation being made.

In those situations, presenting "other sides" is in effect a distortion, a misrepresentation of what is known.

When the truth is less than entirely clear, the possible clarifications should be pursued before much in the way of claims is made.


As for the media, my favorite blogger uses to say that the media is not paid to say "I don't know". I would add that it is not paid to say "there is no real controversy" either.

 

[Buttercup]

"Was the cat on fire?"

You're so brilliant sometimes. Actually, more often than sometimes, but you get my point, I assume.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I wouldn't bet even my most decrepit frubal against you.
Objectivity is a fleeting quality, & there is no faction on any side of an agenda to own it.
Sure, I observe that some will be more objective than others at times.
But opponents will claim that it's the opposite side which is more objective.
It often boils down to this....
"I'm right, so anyone who disagrees is illogical & subjective."
It's still a stalemate.

Examples:
1) I'll take a pro evolution stance on some issue.
Someone else will argue against it based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory.
They'll say I'm the one being subjective.
2) I'll take a view on economics.
Often, there is no right or wrong....just different preferences.
Subjectivity rules both sides.

So what's a fella to do?
One tries to have the best discussion one can.
If we see objectivity failures in the media, we can try to influence them for the better.
I've done this with The History Channel.
That led to my being here.
Is it fair that RF should suffer for THC's sins?
No, but so it goes.

There's a frubal for the first person to say who I'm quoting in that last line.

I believe that's Kurt Vonnegut, if my memory serves. Of course, it may double-foot-fault or serve wide, too. You never know.

 

[Revoltingest]

I believe that's Kurt Vonnegut, if my memory serves. Of course, it may double-foot-fault or serve wide, too. You never know.

Bingo!

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I was just surprised that it went almost an hour without someone responding. Either they aren't reading your posts, @Revoltingest , or Kurt isn't a widely-read author anymore...or the value of a frubal has dropped below that of a shiny new penny on the ground, and no one else but me would pick it up!

 

[Revoltingest]

I was just surprised that it went almost an hour without someone responding. Either they aren't reading your posts, @Revoltingest , or Kurt isn't a widely-read author anymore...or the value of a frubal has dropped below that of a shiny new penny on the ground, and no one else but me would pick it up!

All of the above.

 

[Kori]

I am honest because I view people who lie as cowards. And in honesty I will say I have my beliefs and I am for them. I do look at the opposing view too and try to understand it. However if my mind is changed I will be the one to change it, no one else. I am open to new ideas but if my beliefs are in question I will admit the flaws and the good things. I am me. I have my ideas but I do not have blind loyalty to them or the people of them. People I respect and I admire have said and done things I do not agree with. The Gods and Goddesses have done things I do not agree with. I will admit them but unless it is something extreme I will not abandon my loyalty to them.

 

[bobhikes]

Research?

It's hard and time consuming to do in-depth investigation. It's a lot easier and quicker to find two people who disagree and have them make their cases, whether those cases are valid or not.

It's a lot like how a lot of news outlets are closing their foreign offices: it's way cheaper and easier to just use a wire service.

I would like to add that it is easy for the viewer with the internet to do an in-depth research and be objective. They don't have to just rely on the News person today. I know many people that swear fox is objective and CNN is not and vise/versa. These are educated college people that have internet access.

The problem is not objectivity of the Newscaster/News but the viewer not wanting objectivity.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I notice these days that it's quite popular to indulge oneself in the intellectually dishonest practice of faking objectivity. The media seems to be especially addicted to faking objectivity.

That is, the truth might be clearly on the side on x, but the media will go out of its way to give equal time to not-x on the grounds that doing so is being objective.

Balderdash! Being objective has nothing necessarily to do with merely giving equal time to two opposing points of view. Being objective -- truly objective -- demands that you side with the truth. You simply cannot be objective while pretending that a falsehood has equal weight as a truth.

But what do you think?

What do I think? I think "balderdash" is an underused epithet.

 

[BSM1]

"Was the cat on fire?"

...or dead?