|
journeyman:
your position works well if you presuppose that at some point people imagined "objectivity" was possible.
which of course it is not.
at best, "objectivity" is a kind of neutral rhetorical style that functions to mask the political character of the arguments being advanced.
you note the increased visibility of editorial content in "journalism"
if you accept the above statements, it would follow that this increased visibility would probably be better for the public than a situation in which the illusion of objectivity obtained. in such a situation, viewers/readers would invest some faith in the distinction editorial/journalism and so would be more inclined to not note the convergence (identity?) of the two.
as for trying to enforce a standard of "objectivity" rooted in an ideological illusion...i dont see how it would be possible at any level.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|