Objective Nonsense (part 6)

Chris Johns, Editor of National Geographic magazine, on the objectivity of NGM’s stories:

Chris Johns

[Photographer Stephanie Sinclair] has no agenda. She does not judge. … She photographs what she sees and provides the opportunity for insight. The rest is up to the reader.

In a world full of shrill voices and agendas, we at National Geographic are committed to an unbiased presentation of facts. … It’s what we’ve been doing for more than 120 years.
(We first posted this excerpt here.)

Matthew Yglesias, a Fellow at the Center for American Progress, in What Is Hidden and What is Revealed:

Matthew Yglesias

Something that pops up every time old/new media tensions emerge is the view—which I find, frankly, bizarre—common in the newspaper world that pretending to not have opinions makes your work better. One underlying presumption here is the odd notion that the ideal reporter would be someone who actually doesn’t have opinions, as if “the facts” were purely transparent and could be merely observed, processed, and then regurgitated into inverted pyramid form without passing through the muck of “judgment” or “thoughts about the world.”

Bizarre, indeed.

  • Calico Jack

    Isn’t it a rule of physics that observing an event changes it?

  • Calico Jack

    Isn’t it a rule of physics that observing an event changes it?

  • CJ – Yes, I think it is. But when I read Chris Johns’ musing about NGM, I often feel as though I’ve entered a bizarre land whose inhabitants — or at least its leaders — believe the rules of physics no longer apply.

  • CJ – Yes, I think it is. But when I read Chris Johns’ musing about NGM, I often feel as though I’ve entered a bizarre land whose inhabitants — or at least its leaders — believe the rules of physics no longer apply.

NO NEW POSTS will be published here after February 6, 2014. THIS IS WHY.