Ah, I think journalism has its own conceptualization of neutrality that is distinct due to its goals.

Ah, I think journalism has its own conceptualization of neutrality that is distinct due to its goals.

———–

Neutrality or anti-tendentiousness as a principle (that is, ethics) is formulated differently for whatever the purpose is. An real-world example is: http://www.ifrc.org/…/the-seven-fundamental…/neutrality/

Is it possible to have a personal set of ethics that is neutral without also being apathy? (that is, an active neutrality)? It is possible although I suspect it’s uncommon.

—————

A fictional example of what’s considered a philosophically neutral ethic is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Directive

====

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_objectivity is, I think an ever-changing thing. After yellow journalism in the 19th century, progressivism, rationalism and the notion of putting science to everything was a popular trend that lasted probably until around 1940, at least in education.

====

rather than objectivity, which is why amateurs were not welcomed: without proper training, their professionalism was questionable and possibly nonexistent.

————–

I hate when that happens. I long argued for an input box buffer save built into browsers but nobody listens to me.

=====

No, I don’t think there is a dichotomy between rationalism and emotionalism. The two are always tethered.

======

” Why does the individual have to permanently uphold the objective point of view and state of mind in order to classify?” I don’t think it’s possible for any individual to be fully objective.

But in professional situations, a kind of objectivity is possible.

 

======

Professionalism engenders trust. That’s its main value.

======

An ethics based on professionalism is tendentious in that it’s biased towards impartiality rather than an obvious prejudice, however it’s probably the closest we can get at an actual non-biased viewpoint.

Other options are presenting multiple perspectives but that can also drive a wedge in public opinion causing multiple simultaneous tracks of history running in parallel but not touching, making it difficult to have a “whole audience” and can also be dangerous from a public health perspective (see vax / antivax)

======================

When I write, like here, I tend to use what appears to be a “non-tendentious” tone. My choice of words and phrasings sound authoritative, fact-based and believable.

It’s all bullshit of course. I want you to believe me and a professional tone engenders trust in an audience. It’s a tool of rhetoric and surprisingly effective.

======

 

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


three + 5 =

Leave a Reply