| September 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ||
As I've noted previously, the word "objective" doesn't refer to anything that actually exists. There's no such thing as "objective." There is such as thing as the truth, and there is such a thing as being 100% faithful to the truth.
In practice, people attempting to be "objective" do something very specific. Whatever the opposition is between people in a given case, those attempting to be "objective" seek to give the views of those on both sides equal credence. So, for example, if Islamofascists declare the intention to kill the women and children of Americans, MSM reporters seeking to be "objective" work to support the views of those Islamofascists as much as the views of Americans who are protecting the lives of our own women and children.
It's nothing less than an abandonment by MSM of their responsibility to determine who is telling the truth. Finding out which side is telling the truth would not be "objective."
MSM thus becomes willingly, easily gullible. An example is here.
When MSM reporters discover that they themselves are in a perfect position to perform the noble and heroic action of separating fact from fiction, the mere thrill of it will encourage many of them to do so.
Note: the topic of MSM's bias against pro-America, Conservative views, appears to be an additional, separate subject.
