As a blogger who writes mainly but not entirely about politics, I do my level best to approach political topics with some degree of objectivity.
Naturally, complete objectivity isn’t possible. We all have our biases and they creep unnoticed into our writings. And then we are castigated by someone because we’ve lost our objectivity.
My own strategy for attaining an objective outlook is twofold. To begin with, I maintain a minimal amount of face contact with politician. In fact, I prefer not to meet them in person at all.
My experience has taught me that once we meet someone, our perspective of them is subtlety altered. If we like a person, we find ourselves having difficulty criticizing a decision or including cogent facts about him or her in an article.
The reverse is also a common occurrence. If we are put off by someone’s demeanor, we may, again, without conscious intent, easily criticize him or her and include irrelevant negative information about them in our writings.
I often sum up this phenomenon by observing, “When we like someone, they can do no wrong. When we dislike someone, they can do no right.”
There are exceptions, of course. Some people are able to maintain a sense of objectivity even when analyzing the actions of someone they thoroughly dislike. My guess is that these disciplined people are few in number.
A second approach that I’ve found effective in handing my political biases is to pay as little attention as possible to the words of politicians and concentrate on the results of their actions.
Think about politicians as somewhat similar to poker players. Wiley players often portray themselves as winners by accident. They can’t explain their good fortune in taking your money regularly. Regardless of their explanation, however, they continue to clean your plate at every opportunity.
You might conclude, as I do, that they fully intend to empty your billfold and that their words are so much hot air.
Politicians should be regarded similarly, not as intending to take your money (not always, anyway). We should push their words aside and take a look at the effects of the laws they support or don’t support. Who wins and who loses will give us a better indication of intent than all of the words in a dictionary.
Richard Nixon may have said it best in an unguarded moment. “Don’t pay any attention to what I say. Watch what I do.” Professional politicians are aware if this. That’s why they spend a great deal of time diverting attention with hot air.
But even when we look at results rather than listen to words, we may not be as objective as we wish. We can merely do our level best and let it go. I think an astronaut once remarked that perfection is unattainable. Excellence is the best we can hope for.
In my own personal case, I am satisfied knowing that I have done my level best to present objective opinions. However, I know the perils. The following anecdote may illustrate my point.
Once, as a young intern with a smart mouth, I grew so tired of the boss cautioning us about objectivity that I defined two of his favorite buzz words and jokingly circulated them to the staff in a memo.
Objectivity, I wrote, is when the boss objects to everything you do. Subjectivity is when everything you do is subject to criticism and change by the boss.
This is as true today as it was then. Presenting an objective front has always been one of the most difficult aspects of journalism…and of the ever-increasing role of bloggers in circulating the news.
Quick Wrapup Analysis: Occasionally, all I can think of to write about someone is, “You miserabe, rotten, no-good son of a bitch.” It’s may be wrong but it feels so right.
Read Full Post »