[Old Professer]

I'm one class away from earning an MA in journalism at a Massachusetts university. I know all about J-school.

If that is so, then I must only assume you wrote this in a big hurry:

Absolute objectivity is absolutely impossible, and even it it were possible, it would make for an incredibly boring, milquetoast piece that wasn't worth writing, reading, taping, or broadcasting. Objectivity is the angle, the passion, that each writer or broadcaster brings to his subject. News coverage is flat and meaningless without objectivity.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I must only assume you wrote this in a big hurry:

Absolute objectivity is absolutely impossible, and even it it were possible, it would make for an incredibly boring, milquetoast piece that wasn't worth writing, reading, taping, or broadcasting. Objectivity is the angle, the passion, that each writer or broadcaster brings to his subject. News coverage is flat and meaningless without objectivity. --Hemingway's Ghost

Don't be too hard on him please, Prof.

H.G. was generally dead on target, except that he and MW got wrapped up in a flame war while I was on the road and unable to provide adult supervision.

But of course you're right that "the angle" is hardly to be styled "objectivity." If any writing is to be styled "objective," it must come from a writer who is aware of his own POV and scrupulous to give differing POVs their due.

No matter how bad you may think self-righteous Christians are, they at least recognize that self-righteousness is sinful even when it is they who are guilty of it. The journalist who thinks he is objective, OTOH, is ipso facto self-righteous and utterly unconscious of the possibility of sin.

[rwfromkansas]

Yeah, I assume he means "subjectivity"