More on Objectivity
To sum up my post the other day: the problem with the way the Post and CNN defined objectivity, when they fired Weigel and Nasr, was that it was precisely the opposite of objectivity, that it dismissed reality as unimportant and then privileged a certain subjectivity as the important thing. It’s amazing how often that happens.
For example, former CIA chief Michael Hayden is apparently arguing that “Tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program,” a statement noteworthy for its conflation on conceptually incompatible categories: if Tehran is doing something, it cannot be something they are only suspected of doing. You can suspect them of something or you can have great certainty that they are actually doing the thing you suspect them of. A fascinatingly muddled sentence.
In more objectivity news, as you read about the Wikileaks document dump* that shows us to be fighting a stupid, pointless, and doomed war in Afghanistan (so really, nothing new), let yourself be guided by the White House:
As you report on this issue, it’s worth noting that wikileaks is not an objective news outlet but rather an organization that opposes US policy in Afghanistan.
See how “opposing US policy” is the opposite of objectivity? With us or against us (and objectivity)!