Fake Objectivity

[Sunstone]

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?

 

[Tumah]

Fake Objectivity

I think calling @Brickjectivity or any other members is against the rules.

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't believe it's even possible to be truly objective.

The standard dichotomy is subjective vs. objective. Being subjective is looking at an "object" from one's own (the "subject's") perspective, while being objective is looking at the same object from its perspective, independent of one's own. However, I believe that this is impossible. We can only regard things from our own perspective. Consider, how would a human objectively know the perspective of a rock? Now, that is an extreme example, but I do believe it still holds even on the level of a human trying to objectively consider the perspective of a chimpanzee.

So, I basically regard any person's claim to being "objective" as "fake."

Now, that said, the reason it's impossible is because we all have biases, whether individual or communal. While it is impossible to remove all of those biases, we can reduce them. An individual can never be objective, or even get close, but a community can get close. Collectively taken, our individual biases can be taken into account and removed from consideration when regarding something, thus reducing subjectivity. We all still have community biases, so we can never fully reach objectivity, but we can get close enough that arguing whether it's "objectively true" that Earth orbits Sun, for example, is semantic nitpicking.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm with Riverwolf. I think it's impossible to be truly objective because the subjective conditioning we get from our environment is too deep seated.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't believe it's even possible to be truly objective.

The standard dichotomy is subjective vs. objective. Being subjective is looking at an "object" from one's own (the "subject's") perspective, while being objective is looking at the same object from its perspective, independent of one's own. However, I believe that this is impossible. We can only regard things from our own perspective. Consider, how would a human objectively know the perspective of a rock? Now, that is an extreme example, but I do believe it still holds even on the level of a human trying to objectively consider the perspective of a chimpanzee.

So, I basically regard any person's claim to being "objective" as "fake."

Now, that said, the reason it's impossible is because we all have biases, whether individual or communal. While it is impossible to remove all of those biases, we can reduce them. An individual can never be objective, or even get close, but a community can get close. Collectively taken, our individual biases can be taken into account and removed from consideration when regarding something, thus reducing subjectivity. We all still have community biases, so we can never fully reach objectivity, but we can get close enough that arguing whether it's "objectively true" that Earth orbits Sun, for example, is semantic nitpicking.

Objectivity, like most words, has more than one meaning. Allow me to suggest that you've latched onto the wrong meaning here and have run with it. That's to say, your remarks are largely irrelevant to the OP.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm with Riverwolf. I think it's impossible to be truly objective because the subjective conditioning we get from our environment is too deep seated.

Again, you perhaps should consider that the word objectivity has more than one meaning.

 

[Mycroft]

Again, you perhaps should consider that the word objectivity has more than one meaning.

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

 

[Scott C.]

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?

As far the media goes, objectivity is giving equal time to both sides, not making judgement, and allowing me to decide where the truth lies. If the media decides for me what is truth and presents their case, that is not objectivity IMO.

 

[Sunstone]

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

I kind of expected folks to be capable of working out the meaning in which objectivity was being used in the OP from context. But this is RF, after all. I wonder why I thought people would forego the low hanging fruit here.

 

[Sunstone]

As far the media goes...

The media can suck my root for all I care.

 

[Mycroft]

I kind of expected folks to be capable of working out the meaning in which objectivity was being used in the OP from context. But this is RF, after all. I wonder why I thought people would forego the low hanging fruit here.

But you didn't answer my question!

 

[Buttercup]

The media can suck my root for all I care.

I was hoping this conversation would get interesting at some point.

 

[Scott C.]

The media can suck my root for all I care.

Well OK, but weren't you looking for comments on media objectivity or the lack thereof?

 

[Quintessence]

Objectivity, like most words, has more than one meaning. Allow me to suggest that you've latched onto the wrong meaning here and have run with it. That's to say, your remarks are largely irrelevant to the OP.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "objectivity" in the context you intended? Additionally, what would you consider to be the relationship between being "objective" versus being "impartial?"

 

[LuisDantas]

Some things are undeniably objective, such as mathematics or chemistry.

For the matter discussed in the OP, it might be useful to call it by another name, perhaps "intellectual honesty".

I agree that it is possible and unfortunately common to misrepresent a situation by artificially presenting two or more "sides" and attempting to present them as somewhat equivalent despite facts pointing otherwise.

"Creationism" is a prime example. It is glorified obscurantism and denial of knowledge, but it enjoys political acceptance and support far in excess of its actual merits.

 

[McBell]

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?

Seems to me it is merely the route the Politically Correct slippery slope is heading.

 

[Laika]

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?

 

[Mister Emu]

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.

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

 

[crossfire]

As far the media goes, objectivity is giving equal time to both sides, not making judgement, and allowing me to decide where the truth lies. If the media decides for me what is truth and presents their case, that is not objectivity IMO.

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.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As far the media goes, objectivity is giving equal time to both sides, not making judgement, and allowing me to decide where the truth lies. If the media decides for me what is truth and presents their case, that is not objectivity IMO.

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.