Posted by Sexist Pig on August 11, 2003
In Reply to: One question posted by ESC on August 11, 2003
: : Hi,
: : Could anyone help me with the clause in brackets? Thank you very much.
: : For some feminists seeking to uphold objectivity as a journalistic ideal, [the problem is one of male norms, values and beliefs being allowed to subjectively distort what really took place.]
: That's a tough one. I don't know what it means either and I was a "feminist journalist." Whatever THAT means.
: From Merriam-Webster online:
: Subjective -- modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background.
: Objective -- expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
: The journalistic ideal is that the journalist reports the facts objectively. But it would be difficult for a feminist journalist not to try and correct distortion caused by this being a male dominated world.
: Like it would be difficult for a Jewish journalist to write with total objectivity about the Holocaust?
So only feminist journalists care for objectivity! All males distort their perception of what actually took place to fit in with their "norms". Whilst I suppose that everybody recalls what they witnessed through their mind and I suppose that people use stereotypes or archetypes to handle understanding to some degree, to suggest that women are blessedly free from subjectivity is complete rubbish.
The answer to avoiding interpretation is not to ask for opinion about the event, simply to ask for an account of what the senses revealed to be happening at the time, so far as the witness can recall.
I hope that now the ludicrous statement has been understood, you feel free to label it risible.