I was just getting over “the main difference between seeing it live and seeing it at home is that at home you get better reception,” from yesterday’s blog and one of David’s radio interview segments, when, perusing Jeneane’s place over my wife’s shoulder (your hit counter should register twice for that one, Jeneane) I noticed his remark quoted in USAToday, “Objectivity is a worthwhile objective, but it needs to be recognized that it can't be reached.”
I’m working on a slightly tighter version — something like “The only people you can trust to be objective are the ones who know that objectivity can’t be reached,” something like that. Hmmmm. . . .
[Added later: The line is all David’s; I’m only in this as a touch-up artist. I am an incurable (my students would say, “insufferable”) editor. That is all.]
Posted by AKMA at July 28, 2004 07:23 AM | TrackBackThanks, AKMA. I knew as I was saying it that it didn't scan. Where's the WayBack Machine when you really need it?
Posted by: David Weinberger at July 28, 2004 10:03 AMI invite you to read my comments on journalistic objectivity. David's thinking on the subject sounds consistent with the good conclusions of CJR's Brent Cunningham in his essay "Rethinking Objective Journalism," which I link to in this blog entry.
Posted by: Sally Greene at July 28, 2004 03:17 PMObjectivity is subjective.
Posted by: Michael at July 28, 2004 09:55 PMObjectivity isn't.
Posted by: Jeff Strickler at July 29, 2004 11:12 AM"Insufferable"? I wouldn't say that... but then again, it all depends on one's subjective point of view :)
Posted by: Susie at July 29, 2004 11:59 AM