OK, now that's being repetitive and redundant. ;-)
One of the reasons we have the jury system in America, is we realize that even judges can biased.
True, but not every trial involves a jury. Should the judges in such cases blow off trying to be impartial, since that's impossible?
I'd hope not.
Do you think the way the current media operates is the only system available? Our country would be much better of if the media would stop the facade of journalist neutrality.
Anyone who has paid very close attention knows that the media isn't even pretending to be impartial. J schools regularly preach exactly what the author regurgitated: Objectivity is a fallacy. (Never mind that "fallacy" isn't even what they mean; word meaning is endlessly flexible to a liberal.)
With that false premise, that objectivity is a "fallacy", today's journalists feel entitled to embrace their bias, and even flaunt it.
I would much rather we have a system where so called journalists admit they take sides and advocate for their person or party. At least then there would be some honesty.
That would be a start, but journalists won't even do that. They simply let the mistaken perception of neutrality work for them.
Do you think the way the current media operates is the only system available?
Umm... No. But what does that have to do with my posts?
I'm not talking about one system or another, but with the current belief that a high ideal such as objectivity should be dismissed out of hand because it's believed to be unreachable.
You sound as if you are either a journalist or a student of journalism. If so, I am sure you have heard about the case of N.Y. Times v. Sullivan. Its the landmark case wich says that the press can not be held responsible for lies about public figures. This brings up the question: Why would a media outlet, which values its journalist integrity, ever sue for the right to lie?
I am neither a journalist nor a journalism student. I have found it valuable to be aware of some of their thinking though.
The court case you mention is also beside the point. I'm talking about ethics and ideals, not legal requirements and liability.
I just disagree with the author's assertion that "objectivity is a fallacy". That statement is both a misuse of the word "fallacy" and misleading in spirit.
I believe he meant "objectivity is unattainable", or something to that effect. My argument is that such an unattainable goal as objectivity has great value as an ideal to reach for regardless of its attainability.
Jesus Christ said, "Be ye therefore perfect..." Isn't that a valuable ideal, even if it is thought to be unattainable? Wouldn't society be better if everyone were striving toward that ideal?
And wouldn't the news media be far better, even if imperfect, by trying to be objective?
I hate to repeat myself, but that is exactly what I said - Objectivity is unattainable.
You missed my main point about judges. The parties get to opt for a judge - in that case they agree to accept any bias he has. Political candidates have no such right.