“Accurate” reporting trumps objectivity

Quote of the day:

Journalists believe objectivity prevents them from accurate reporting, as it bars them from channeling their background and beliefs, the survey found.

Mary Lou Masters
January 31, 2023
Major News Outlets Say They’re Ditching Objectivity In The Name Of ‘Diversity’

Their “own truth” is more valid that “the truth” or even there is no absolute truth. If they believe something, it is just as valid as any other “truth”.

This reminds me of something daughter Jaime observed and found life changing. It is closely related to, if not the same as, Peterson Syndrome where the person does not have a process to determine truth from falsity. Some people are totally oblivious to a distinction between the truth and beliefs. They lack the mental processes to understand the difference.

I’m not quite as cynical as daughter Jaime on this topic, but that could be a personality flaw on my part. I’m more of an optimist than she is.


13 thoughts on ““Accurate” reporting trumps objectivity

    • “Grammar as a white supremacist construct… the notion that it’s a bad thing to teach the difference between noun and verb… wow.”
      And here I felt ignorant all these years. Ha! I make it another 10 years I’ll be in good company!

  1. That’s why the vast majority of media news reporting is really commentary.
    Producers and editors trim the details to reflect their opinion.

  2. The purposes of modern public education are:
    1) Teach others to hate whites
    2) Teach whites to hate themselves
    3) Teach white boys to hate themselves
    4) Prepare young children for homosexual groomers
    5) Teach children to obey arbitrary authority
    6) Teach children that everything is nonsense
    7) Teach children that they cannot learn
    8) Teach children there is no objective reality, only the daily pronouncements of authority

    • This list isn’t that different from John Taylor Gatto’s list in his seminal work, “Dumbing Us Down”, written more than thirty years ago. If I could find my copy, I could quote his lessons verbatim.

  3. The preservation of critical thinking seems quite the challenge, as we seem to be on a downslope in the area of education in that regard. This is one of the major challenges in the preservation of Western Civilization.

    I’ve been reading Cooper’s Commentaries, and one of his themes was pinning down what constitutes “education”. He wrote that it is not something obtained in school. I don’t think that’s entirely correct, but it’s more correct now than it used to be.

    There are extraordinary philosophical depths to be plumbed here, and centuries of contemplation have yet to resolve anything. The more I read, the worse it seems to get.

    I spent my HS years in a parochial institution, where I encountered many very learned, intelligent men who were also profoundly firm in their Christian faith.

    Expressed simply, the arguments come down to: such complexity as we find in nature (including the whole universe) could not have come about solely as a result of the interaction of the laws of physics, no matter how much time we allow, and such complexity … is far too complex to have been created by a god-like intelligence.

    The current dumbing-down of our institutions and discourse seems to be the laziest manifestion of the decline.

    • “Is far too complex to have been created by a god-like intelligence.”
      Absolutely the level of discourse in clown-world is dropping like a rock.
      But if not a god-like intelligence. Then who? It sure as hell ain’t Bill Gate and Yavi Harari. Although Chris Langan (the smartest man in the world), is coming as close as man is probably going to get in understanding it all.
      I can plainly see man rejecting god. As acceptance brings a whole set of constraints that certain humans naturally hate.
      But one’s acceptance/rejection of god is of no consequence to the observable universe.
      As the truth is that everything living under the sun grows, decays, and dies.
      Wither there is a god can only be known after that process. Maybe.
      Some just believe that the process was done that way on propose. As it is actually a masterful way of separating humans into two rough groups.
      And the only reason for life to have meaning in existence. As have been observed several times in human history. As soon as a system removes choice. That system falls apart. So that choice can be restored.
      Just as Sodom was destroyed, as it’s children were never going to have a chance of being anything more than two-fold the children of hell their parents were trained to be.
      We will be no different. We just feel special is all.
      We can fight all day over truth, and never get anywhere. As we have throughout human history. But only God can give us a choice.
      So, if not a God-like intelligence, then what?

  4. So, their just now getting around to admitting what they have been doing for a 150 years or better? Lying.
    Well, that’s news to………Nobody.
    The upside is their starting to be honest with themselves. Doesn’t mean their on the wagon. But It’s a good start!

  5. I see the point, and agree mostly but also disagree strenuously.
    Yes, it’s stupid to not question your position / beliefs / understanding when presented with contrary evidence, at least on things that are objectively knowable and a truth exists regardless of what you feel about it, such as “does restricting access to guns lower the crime / homicide rate?.” But It’s “irrational” to love your children even when they do bad or stupid things, but good parents do anyway, and keep hoping for the best even when the bulk of the evidence is firmly point in another direction. Parenting at all, from a purely individual perspective, is almost entirely irrational in a time of retirement funds and the welfare state; enjoy your life and let someone else assume the expense and trouble of raising kids, then you can simply pay them to take care of you when you are old. And yet…

    OTOH, how rational is it to let biological males into the girls locker room (or placed in locked cells with females in prisons) simply because they “identify” as female, when any blood test (and often casual observation) will indicate otherwise? Yet that’s what many would assert is “right and proper.”

    Also, there are some things were the IS NO “rational” correct answer, just competing flavors of “irrational” and “rationalizing.”

    Example: Does God exist, and did He make the universe?”

    On the one hand we have the “rationalist” saying there is no God; in the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded, and over time mud turning into plants and animals. They also believe in the fossil evidence of evolution when it places the human-chimp common ancestor roughly 5 million years ago, AND ALSO in the best DNA studies that put it ~50 million years ago, well outside margin of uncertainty and overlap. At the same time, to believe that, they have to deny all sorts of miracles and first-hand testimony on on kinds of things, and dismiss them all as delusions, illusion, liars, and coincidences. And they call themselves “rational.”

    Meanwhile the “irrational” Jesus freaks can point to first hand miracles, historical ones, and a logically consistent explanation for a whole lot of things that science can’t (e.g. no secular explanation for schizophrenia, but an excellent one via the “supernatural,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64uyYw2jywA ), and do so in a way that gives people hope to carry on and be good people doing good things in the face of all the evil in the world. For that matter, much of the evil is done by people who claim there is no God (think communism), yet the Godless keep failing even though they are “rational.” And how can you explain “good” and “evil” objectively without God, which usually has faith without direct and obvious verifiable evidence?

    • One cannot hold themselves as rational, and believe crap like the big bang. Or that life started with lightning striking a pool of molecules.
      They’re fairytales. Plain and simple. Very expensive ones I might add.
      In this day and age, we have little excuse for not knowing.
      And far less for calling it rational.
      So, when reporters tell us they want to drop the truth out of their reporting. It’s only so you can’t call them liars.
      Cause it’s just how they feel about what’s being reported on. I can hear them now when cornered on a subject. “We told you it was not going to be true. It’s just our opinion. It’s how we feel about it. Someone with a PHD. told us to believe that.”
      Rationality begs the question, How is unobjective reporting going to fly with mis-information censors? As always, politically.
      Like saying you want equality, hate racism, then promote people based on skin color?
      Like evolution and the Bible. Each side is just pointing out the others fairytales. When there is no “rational” earthly choice to be made from either one.
      The only true argument is over sustainability. Can humans live in a system based on lies?
      Not the ones their telling.
      Chose this day whom you will serve. To me, that’s the real question.

  6. These days MSM “journalism ” is all about “moral clarity” which is Newspeak for propaganda

  7. It occurs to me that newspapers are reverting back to historic practice (or more precisely, doing so openly). In centuries past, it was normal — and considered so — for newspapers to be biased. You’d buy the bias you wanted. It’s only in the past 100 years or so that newspapers have adopted the pretense of being objective and neutral. I’m not quite sure why they came up with that story, or who they thought they would be fooling.

Comments are closed.