In a recent discussion on the Oz Report forum about Flip's
comments re me in my positions as Oz Report publisher and 2007 Worlds meet
director
http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5767 the concept of journalistic
objectivity has been raised. This is a concept that I have thought a great deal
about and I thought that I would provide a few quotes that illustrate my take on
the matter.


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1999/9901.symposium.kinsley.html


http://www.slate.com/id/2139042/


http://www.slate.com/id/2058456/

Objectivity—the faith professed by American journalism and by its
critics—is less an ideal than a conceit. It's not that all journalists are
secretly biased, or even that perfect objectivity is an admirable but
unachievable goal. In fact, most reporters work hard to be objective and the
best come very close. The trouble is that objectivity is a muddled concept. Many
of the world's most highly opinionated people believe with a passion that it is
wrong for reporters to have any opinions at all about what they cover. These
critics are people who could shed their own skins more easily than they could
shed their opinions. But they expect it of journalists. It can't be done.
Journalists who claim to have developed no opinions about what they cover are
either lying or deeply incurious and unreflective about the world around them.
In either case, they might be happier in another line of work.


Or perhaps objectivity is supposed to be a shimmering, unreachable destination,
but the journey itself is purifying, as you mentally pick up your biases and put
them aside, one-by-one. Is that the idea? It has a pleasing, Buddhist flavor.
But that's no substitute for sense. Nobody believes in objectivity, if that
means neutrality on any question about which two people somewhere on the planet
might disagree. May a reporter take as a given that two plus two is four? Should
a newspaper strive to be open-minded about Osama Bin Laden? To reveal—to
have!—no preference between the United States and Iran? Is it permissible for a
news story to take as a given that the Holocaust not only happened, but was a
bad thing—or is that an expression of opinion that belongs on the op-ed page?
Even those who think objectivity can be turned on and off like a light switch
don't want it switched on all the time. But short of that, there is no objective
answer to when the switch needs to be on and when it can safely be turned off.


Opinion journalism can be more honest than objective-style journalism because it
doesn't have to hide its point of view. It doesn't have to follow a trail of
evidence or line of reasoning until one step before the conclusion and then slam
on the brakes for fear of falling into the gulch of subjectivity. All
observations are subjective. Writers freed of artificial objectivity can try to
determine the whole truth about their subject and then tell it whole to the
world. Their "objective" counterparts have to sort their subjective observations
into two arbitrary piles: truths that are objective as well, and truths that are
just an opinion. That second pile of truths then gets tossed out, or perhaps put
in quotes and attributed to someone else. That is a common trick used by
objective-style journalists in order to tell their readers what they believe to
be true without inciting the wrath of the Objectivity cops.


Abandoning the pretense of objectivity does not mean abandoning the journalist's
most important obligation, which is factual accuracy. In fact, the practice of
opinion journalism brings additional ethical obligations. These can be
summarized in two words: intellectual honesty. Are you writing or saying what
you really think? Have you tested it against the available counterarguments?
Will you stand by an expressed principle in different situations, when it leads
to an unpleasing conclusion? Are you open to new evidence or argument that might
change your mind? Do you retain at least a tiny, healthy sliver of a doubt about
the argument you choose to make?