Bambling

I’d like to apologize to Thomas Nagel, because I’m about to horribly misinterpret his words to discuss something only tangentially related to the point of the article I’m citing.
It makes me sound smarter if I cite a philosophy article instead of just rambling.

In theoretical reasoning objectivity is advanced when we form a new conception of reality that includes ourselves as components. This involves an alteration or at least an extension of our beliefs. In the sphere of values or practical reasoning, the problem is different. As in the theoretical case, we must take up a new, comprehensive viewpoint after stepping back and including our former perspective in what is to be understood. But here the new viewpoint will be not a new set of beliefs, but a new or extended set of values.
- Thomas Nagel, The View From Nowhere

Summary for people who like reading understandable things:
When making judgments about what’s “right” in the real world (as opposed to the theoretical if-there-were-only-two-people-and-one-of-them-is-a-masochist world) we can’t simply toss out our personal set of beliefs. We can step back, try and be all inclusive, but at the end of the day we’re going to be viewing the same set of facts we were before. We’re just pretending to ignore the values we normally hold.

Journalists are asked to do this every day. Journalists have to be impartial in approaching a story. Personally I’ve learned to remove myself from making judgments on any current state of affairs; always play the devil’s advocate if it seems too difficult to hold in a personal opinion. When pushed, I can defend pro-life, pro-choice, and pro-wrestling. I’ve gotten good at it and I like feeling that my opinions are maleable - I’m always willing to accept a better idea if it’s presented to me appropriately (at least, that’s what I tell myself).

After the September 24th walkout I found myself a little frustrated. Not that I could or could not openly support the walkout, but because so many of the people I work with were willing to flagrantly disregard the impartiality which is expected of a journalist. Even if it seems completely reasonable, a journalist has to remove themselves from the equation and try and understand the situation from all perspectives.

Now, if I left it at that (me=right, others=wrong) that’d be a little hypocritical. But when I tried to get the other opinion (that of the “opinionated journalist”) the conversation was generally … well:

Me: You know that it’s not exactly ethical for a journalist to take a stand on this issue, right?
Opinionated Journalist: Yeah, someone else already told me that.
Me: I mean, you can have an opinion if you want, just don’t wear the giant t-shirts decrying your support. Or carry big signs. Or burning effigies. That kinda thing.
Opinionated Journalist: I don’t really care. I support this issue. I don’t care if people know it.
Me: Oh.
Opinionated Journalist: …
Me: …

I’ve thought about it before. I’ve thought about it since. And I’m thinking about it again, with the November 18th strike coming up (which, oddly, seems to be related to the Remington Rand strike, though I don’t understand how).

The future of journalism is up in the air (no shit). Bloggers are openly opinionated, and that’s now a major source of information for segments of the population. Fox News and MSNBC aren’t exactly “fair and balanced” (though if you ask anyone of a strong political persuasion, they’ll usually say that their side is perfectly legit). Frankly, maybe we’re reaching a point where journalists take sides on issues. As long as they’re informed and willing to consider both views (see: NOT Fox News or MSNBC), I can think of worse things in the world (see: Fox News or MSNBC).

But that still seems wrong to me. So I’m proposing (to myself and the random spam-bot that still checks this blog) a middle ground: if a journalist wants to be opinionated, go ahead. Take a stand for what you truly believe is right. Hell, go out, protest, get involved, burn effigies and all that jazz. Hunter would be proud. But for fuck’s sake, don’t cover what you take a stand on. You don’t get to have your cake and eat it, too. As soon as you decide to take a side, you’re no longer impartial. You can still tell yourself that you have the “right” idea, and I hope for your sake that you do. But there’s enough blatant bias in the media. Don’t fuck up my job because you can’t seem to unbunch your panties.

I have opinions. I am not objective. But I don’t think there’s a “right” or “wrong” and I’m damn well going to do the job of a journalist from as unbiased a position as possible.

Tags: Hunter S. Thompson, morality, protest, UC Berkeley

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 10th, 2009 at 22:17 and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.