I don't want objectivity....
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
... I want the truth.
There is a tendency in 'the West', especially when discussing media coverage of events or political opinion, to cherish the notion of objectivity. I'm not sure where this idea arose from or why it has achieved an almost unassailable position at the peak of journalistic values. It seems to me, however, that objectivity is almost never what we need.
As Einstein demonstrated, what we perceive to be the truth about the universe changes depending where we stand. This is sometimes used as an argument for seeing things 'in the round' or presenting 'the complete picture'. Unfortunately, not only is this never possible (imagine a cubist interpretation of the news) but the predilection for news in small chunks mitigates against any attempt to present 'all the facts'. Objectivity, then, becomes at best a shorthand for sterility and the removal of emotion or opionion, and at worst a wilful misrepresentation of the truth when the official line is designated objective.
Nietzsche saw truth, not as objective, but as residing in what he called 'the will to justice'. This seems a much better measure of the worth of any news report. It is also easier to determine the level of iniquity within the right wing news networks and press when you gauge their reasons for telling you things rather than try to separate the facts from the underlying and unstated opinions. Is what they tell you contributing to the increase in human awareness and achievement? (Nietzsche saw justice very much as an historical process of increased human greatness). Or, when Fox portrays George Bush as the best possible candidate for the US Presidency, are they attempting to manipulate facts to serve purposes more likely to hinder the growth of the world in just about every possible way?
There is a tendency in 'the West', especially when discussing media coverage of events or political opinion, to cherish the notion of objectivity. I'm not sure where this idea arose from or why it has achieved an almost unassailable position at the peak of journalistic values. It seems to me, however, that objectivity is almost never what we need.
As Einstein demonstrated, what we perceive to be the truth about the universe changes depending where we stand. This is sometimes used as an argument for seeing things 'in the round' or presenting 'the complete picture'. Unfortunately, not only is this never possible (imagine a cubist interpretation of the news) but the predilection for news in small chunks mitigates against any attempt to present 'all the facts'. Objectivity, then, becomes at best a shorthand for sterility and the removal of emotion or opionion, and at worst a wilful misrepresentation of the truth when the official line is designated objective.
Nietzsche saw truth, not as objective, but as residing in what he called 'the will to justice'. This seems a much better measure of the worth of any news report. It is also easier to determine the level of iniquity within the right wing news networks and press when you gauge their reasons for telling you things rather than try to separate the facts from the underlying and unstated opinions. Is what they tell you contributing to the increase in human awareness and achievement? (Nietzsche saw justice very much as an historical process of increased human greatness). Or, when Fox portrays George Bush as the best possible candidate for the US Presidency, are they attempting to manipulate facts to serve purposes more likely to hinder the growth of the world in just about every possible way?
