03-01-2011, 09:50 PM
Alright, another theme that popped up more than once in the replies I got was about "truth". Who decides what's true?
If you look through the OP, I don't think you'll see me using the word "truth" or the word "true". I talked about objectivity. I did that on purpose. Mostly I wanted to steer clear of having to get into a discussion about the metaphysical nature of truth - although if anyone wanted to get into a discussion about that, I'm sure I would enjoy it; but my thought was that most people would rather not. But I think we may be able to approach this in an intuitive way that you may find adequate.
It usually doesn't make sense to talk about something being more true or less true (things are not partly the way they are, they are what they are). But we do fairly routinely think in terms of more objective or less objective. The term objective has many definition meanings, but this is along the lines of what I intended:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
But, I admit, that still leaves the problem of if a journalist did a report under the auspices of ACJ but was accused of not being objective, how would the accrediting association determine whether or not the non-objectivity charge was accurate? Well, I think you could do it the way other professional associations do - have an investigative body get as much of the information they can and make a judgment call as to whether or not the journalist did or did not follow the criteria for objectivity. Sure, just like other professional organizations that accredit people, there is potential for things to go awry, but that hasn't stopped us from seeing the overall desirability of having such organizations.
Me being kinda defensive - I would like to point out that in the OP I did recognize this as a significant problem:
If you look through the OP, I don't think you'll see me using the word "truth" or the word "true". I talked about objectivity. I did that on purpose. Mostly I wanted to steer clear of having to get into a discussion about the metaphysical nature of truth - although if anyone wanted to get into a discussion about that, I'm sure I would enjoy it; but my thought was that most people would rather not. But I think we may be able to approach this in an intuitive way that you may find adequate.
It usually doesn't make sense to talk about something being more true or less true (things are not partly the way they are, they are what they are). But we do fairly routinely think in terms of more objective or less objective. The term objective has many definition meanings, but this is along the lines of what I intended:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
3a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
But, I admit, that still leaves the problem of if a journalist did a report under the auspices of ACJ but was accused of not being objective, how would the accrediting association determine whether or not the non-objectivity charge was accurate? Well, I think you could do it the way other professional associations do - have an investigative body get as much of the information they can and make a judgment call as to whether or not the journalist did or did not follow the criteria for objectivity. Sure, just like other professional organizations that accredit people, there is potential for things to go awry, but that hasn't stopped us from seeing the overall desirability of having such organizations.
Me being kinda defensive - I would like to point out that in the OP I did recognize this as a significant problem:
- Probably the hardest question is... what criteria would be used to determine if a report is objective enough? What does it mean to say a report is objective?