Via MT at Planet3, we have a nice quote from FAIR:

This is what I like to describe as the difference between objectivity and "objectivity." Objectivity is the belief that there is a real world out there that's more or less knowable; the "objectivity" that journalists practice holds that it's impossible to know what's real, so all you can do is report the claims made by various (powerful) people.

The topic at hand is of course electoral politics and political reporting in general, but it has very clear relevance to climate science reporting and science reporting in general.  While we are recalling the pre-2012 presidential election Nate Silver, I was very bemused by the NYT's embarrassed scolding of Silver's offer to bet on the outcome as it showed their inability to distinguish between describing a reality (Obama is likely to win) versus advocating for a particular outcome (I hope Obama wins).   Similar to the way they feel that saying "Party X is not telling the truth" is indistinguishable for "We support Party Y".

More like this

Regular readers probably know that I'm into more than just science, skepticism, and promoting science-based medicine (SBM). (If they're regular readers of my other, not-so-super-secret other project, they might also realize that they've seen this post before elsewhere. I had to stay out late for a…
Now that we've apparently elected Nate Silver the President of Science, this is some predictable grumbling about whether he's been overhyped. If you've somehow missed the whole thing, Jennifer Ouellette offers an excellent summary of the FiveThirtyEight saga, with lots of links, but the Inigo…
You've probably noticed that I haven't been blogging much lately. That's partly because this is an especially busy time of the semester. Try grading a thousand midterm exam problems in a few days and see how many brain cells you have left over for blogging. Mostly, though, it's my general…
Sorry about the abrupt end to the liveblogging last night; Firefox crashed, and CoverItLive wouldn't let me log back in as the moderator. Anyway, it's a good day to be a liberal. As you all know by now, it was Obama in an absolute landslide. He won by a huge margin in the electoral vote, and by a…

You will be interested to read my free book on human awareness and motor control for objectivity. It's a free download at my site http://thehumandesign.net (non-spiritual design, just mechanical)

By Marcus Morgan (not verified) on 05 Aug 2013 #permalink

To be fair (no pun intended), many English words have more than one meaning - objectivity being one of them - and it all depends on context.

In the context of science, the correct meaning should be "free of emotion or bias". Unfortunately, its not a position which is adopted by the denier echo chamber.

Oh dear, Coby, you now even get visits from chemtrail nutters....

What the major media want is attention, and the way to get attention is with emotions, so they excel in pot-stirring and emotionalisms of all kinds.

The most crass example is "cry porn." Not a single night goes by on every local TV news station, without a reference to "crying", "tears," and suchlike. Funerals, particularly involving tragic deaths, are feeding frenzies. The biggest prize is to catch someone immediately after a tragic death of a loved one, in order to milk them for every last tear and every last sob. "Daughter dies, father cries, all the boo-hoos at six!"

Compared to that, climate hand-waving and focus on false controversies, is almost mild sauce. Except that inaction on climate is an existential threat to the species. I suppose you can call that "cry porn on loan, at high interest rates."