|
zenny -> RE: Shocking Admission regarding Fox News. (3/24/2009 9:06:13 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: philosophy
quote:
ORIGINAL: zenny
A person's perception of reality may be subjective. Reality is not.
...actually, i'd go further. A person's perception of reality is necessarily subjective. Even a scientist reading data from impersonal dials and read-outs can unconsciously inject personal bias into what they read.
Like many, many things in life.....it's not achieving the aim that's important, it's how much someone strives towards it. Absolute objectivity in news broadcasting is impossible. For a start it runs foul of the most basic of problems in communication models. Sender-medium-receiver. At any point in that three mode model errors can occur.
So, given that objectivity is impossible, on what basis can we judge a news broadcasting outlet? i'd argue we can judge on how hard it strives to be impartial and what it does when it confronted with its failures. The BBC publicises its failures and attempts to improve both its objectivity and how it can be held to account. Fox news doesn't even try.....it just declares itself partisan. The recent furore over the shameful remarks on its Redeye programme regarding the Canadian military is a case in point. The lukewarm apology isn't even reported on the programs webpage.
As to reality being objective. Well, now we're into the realm of the existential. It may well be objective, we can even agree that it probably is. But how the hell can anyone claim to know precisely what reality is, when we're all necessarily biased by virtue of the fact we percieve reality via imperfect biological mechanisms?
Which brings me to my third point in reply to you. Thousands of years of nature red in tooth and claw. Fair enough. Even possibly true (although some interesting studies have been done in how natures often uses cooperation as a survival mechanism). The point is that the reality of our future is a story we tell ourselves. Mercy, altruism, charity. All these are human artefacts......and as humans we have the incredible ability to create these concepts. To toss out our ability to 'think of the children' is to deny the most human facet of our animal selves. Our unique characteristic.
This would be where you and I differ. A reading from a dial is by its very nature objective. One cannot be more objective than a simply stated fact. However, once the same scientists says "I find checking this dial is tedious and annoying" then that person is delving into their subjective side. Regardless of the second statement, the first is objective.
This separation of base subjective and objective statements would give us a simple ratio scale. A news organization could in actuality be completely objective. Just state the facts. Let the audience decide.
As to the other portions of your post it appears you're going into post modernism. I don't delve into that crap. However, I will say, we are animals, and there are many instances of animals being those three listed "human atrefacts". Want to know what separates us from our fellow animals (other than genetic makeup)? Technology. It's that simple.
|
|
|
|
