Letters to the Editor
-
A weird sense of objectivity
The problem here may be the odd definition of objectivity that these journalists stick to like survivors of a sinking ship stick to anything that will float. They seem to think that if they write down correctly the words that some important person utters, then run over to another person of similar social standing and scribble down their words, then put them both in the story verbatim, they have acted "objectively' and therefore have no other obligations. Finding out the truth would mean calling one of these pillars of the community a liar, and that would be just nasty, brutish, bad behaviour. Nobody can get mad at you, not your local politicos, not your editor, nobody, if you just transcribe the words of the powerful and leave it at that. Since, to these postmodern reporters, all utterances are simply plays for power and money, and everyone will by definition lie to get what they want (and it's all about getting what you want, isn't it?) why bother to worry about how well statements conform to reality (whatever that is). To dig for the truth is either futile or it will get you into trouble, for the truth may force you to say that X is lying while Y is telling the truth, thereby breeching your sacrosanct "objectivity" and coming down on one side or another. If that side is mom, apple pie, and America's right to push around lesser peoples and kill them if they fail to "do the right thing", they will come down that way, if not, they would rather just shut up and keep transcibing.