: What about the issues?…October 29, 2004
Interest and objectivity…
What qualities the adjective “objective” refers to in journalism remain deeply confused to the detriment of the profession and our society. This is evident in an excellent essay by Doug McGill, published on PressThink. (A full version of the essay may be found here. My remarks are confined to the edited version from PressThink.) He says of objectivity:
It has at its heart the noble aim of presenting indisputable facts upon which everyone in society can agree, and build upon towards the goal of a better society. Unfortunately, the ideal of objectivity has in practice in today
Posted by acline | October 29, 2004 | Posted in: Main | Comments (9)
It pains me to say this, but Doc, you need to read the McGill essay as a journalist and not as an academic. Do not let the obfuscation of academia blind you to the value of this essay. Journalism is to serve the public (or simple-minded, or whatever) not academe. Please remember. How have your remarks advanced understanding and learning for “the other”? 100 words or less, please.
Re: blind me to the value of the essay
I praised the essay. And I also pointed out that it is journalism, not academia, that is obfuscating the meaning of objectivity. I call on journalism to eschew obfuscation!
Sorry. Couldn’t resist
My entry advanced understanding by pointing out these things:
1- There is a language to speak of objectivity as process that is distinct from objectivity as stance.
2- Understanding the difference between objectivity as stance and objectivity as process is a way to better journalism.
3- Objectivity as process has little to do with disinterest in regard to a subject and everything to do with interest in regard to understanding.
4- Objective reporting of the kind I’m talking about leads to better journalism.
I’m not sure I made the 100-word limit…but then I do go on
I find it telling that you used examples of people that researched the physical sciences rather than the social sciences or life sciences.
I agree with thinking about reporting as an objective process. I believe strongly that you can describe the process objectively, but that the process of being a witness and/or watchdog is inherently a subjective one.
I wonder if the press cycle could not be described as a variation of Boyd’s OODA loop. The distinction is important given the time scales and dynamism of understanding physical laws versus understanding human, social and political behavior as a commercial endeavor.
What’s not subjective about observations in science? (They are actually transactional, which means there’s a subject component.) Heisenberg demonstrated that the observer necessarily affects the observed. There’s no such thing as an objective point of view.
What’s not subjective about observations in science?
Not only can observation be subjective, but expression in explaining the phenomenon can be subjective.
This is actually considered an advantage in many cases.
Since you bring up Heisenberg (and the more philosophical aspect of his more rigidly expressed uncertainty principle), there are different mathematical expressions for the physics being studied. Waves or particles? Matrices or calculus? The choice for expression may be subjective based on comfort or familiarity, but the assumptions and explanations for error must be presented for others to repeat and verify.
In physical sciences, repeatability is the method for accounting for subjectivity.
You make the argument that your structural bias theory is a better theory because it is more predictive of press behavior – a better explanation – than perhaps ideological bias. Do you consider it a scientific theory? Is there an empirical process, data, studies demonstrating that it is predictive with a quantified error and based on a set of assumptions?
And then can we turn this process around and look at reporting as a scientific process. Is reporting based on a set of theories and laws that help predict results that are repeatable? Lippman’s map of reality?
re: Do you consider it a scientific theory? Is there an empirical process, data, studies demonstrating that it is predictive with a quantified error and based on a set of assumptions?
Yes, I consider it a scientific theory (still needs proper articulation) No, the quantitative work still needs to be done by those who do that kind of work. I am not a quantitative analyst. I am a rhetorical analyst, so I am making a claim based merely on my own observations and interpretations of the textual record.
Yes, there is an empirical process to gather the data that I consider–but it is qualitative data, i.e. rhetorical analysis.
That’s interesting, qualitative data. Is rhetorical analysis a study of art? Can art be studied objectively? Can art be produced objectively – by an objective process even if the result is received subjectively, even as something that emotes?
How about architecture? Parenting? Baseball?
There is a great concern about the blurring of lines between science and policy – especially politicians designing policy based on directed science. When scientists express concern about interest it is usually in this area. Disinterested science is science for the sake of knowing. It is not technology. Applied sciences are more vulnerable to commercial and political influence.
So how is the press different from art or architecture or an applied science?
Hee!Hee! It took me a while, but I finally rememebered why “eschew obfuscation” seemed so familiar!
Oh, and I also “remembered” that I should use the preview feature. Jeez!