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 *

+ six = 7

Leave a Reply