The role of the BBC is clear with regard to presenting reporting and giving analysis on political issues. Truth and objectivity is the requirement. Not a faux equality that allows politically motivated people in authority to give unfair airtime to political parties and views that they favour
November 12, 2025 at 7:05 AM
The role of the BBC is clear with regard to presenting reporting and giving analysis on political issues. Truth and objectivity is the requirement. Not a faux equality that allows politically motivated people in authority to give unfair airtime to political parties and views that they favour
Gonna let my nerd show here, but Ted Porter’s Trust in Numbers.
Completely changed how I viewed statistics, data, and objectivity
Completely changed how I viewed statistics, data, and objectivity
performative reading, lack of reading skills, nobody's reading anymore -- NO!
tell me about a book that changed you
for me? the *extremely* ahistorical novel, THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY which I read at 13 and was like, "Oh, art can be *everything* to a maker, for good and bad"
tell me about a book that changed you
for me? the *extremely* ahistorical novel, THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY which I read at 13 and was like, "Oh, art can be *everything* to a maker, for good and bad"
November 12, 2025 at 4:16 AM
Gonna let my nerd show here, but Ted Porter’s Trust in Numbers.
Completely changed how I viewed statistics, data, and objectivity
Completely changed how I viewed statistics, data, and objectivity
yes, soup is primarily meat/veggies/noodles over broth, which also describes ramen. I'll grant that the vibes are totally different but if we're aiming for objectivity, it falls under the soup umbrella
November 12, 2025 at 12:50 AM
yes, soup is primarily meat/veggies/noodles over broth, which also describes ramen. I'll grant that the vibes are totally different but if we're aiming for objectivity, it falls under the soup umbrella
Impartiality versus objectivity:#
Imagine the BBC has two guests arguing over the nature of the earth. One guest holds the earth is flat, the other claims it's a sphere.
An impartial BBC would give both arguments equal value.👀
An objective BBC would dismiss the claim of the flat-earther.
Imagine the BBC has two guests arguing over the nature of the earth. One guest holds the earth is flat, the other claims it's a sphere.
An impartial BBC would give both arguments equal value.👀
An objective BBC would dismiss the claim of the flat-earther.
November 12, 2025 at 12:11 AM
Impartiality versus objectivity:#
Imagine the BBC has two guests arguing over the nature of the earth. One guest holds the earth is flat, the other claims it's a sphere.
An impartial BBC would give both arguments equal value.👀
An objective BBC would dismiss the claim of the flat-earther.
Imagine the BBC has two guests arguing over the nature of the earth. One guest holds the earth is flat, the other claims it's a sphere.
An impartial BBC would give both arguments equal value.👀
An objective BBC would dismiss the claim of the flat-earther.
On the plus side the f-up will ensure better integrity checks on BBC programming output and prioritizing objectivity over sensationalism. A wake-up call to BBC journalists and program editors. Being publicly funded means less gaslighting in program output or control by the elite.
November 11, 2025 at 10:54 PM
On the plus side the f-up will ensure better integrity checks on BBC programming output and prioritizing objectivity over sensationalism. A wake-up call to BBC journalists and program editors. Being publicly funded means less gaslighting in program output or control by the elite.
I remember when that happened, and it actually impressed me that Weigel had that side to him, with little tolerance for BS. I would never have guessed it from his writings.
I think it’s silly to define objectivity for journalists
to the point, where they are not allowed to have personal opinions.
I think it’s silly to define objectivity for journalists
to the point, where they are not allowed to have personal opinions.
November 11, 2025 at 10:18 PM
I remember when that happened, and it actually impressed me that Weigel had that side to him, with little tolerance for BS. I would never have guessed it from his writings.
I think it’s silly to define objectivity for journalists
to the point, where they are not allowed to have personal opinions.
I think it’s silly to define objectivity for journalists
to the point, where they are not allowed to have personal opinions.
Did you read the article? There is no objectivity in the term terrorist. A terrorist can be anyone the state dislikes.
November 11, 2025 at 10:00 PM
Did you read the article? There is no objectivity in the term terrorist. A terrorist can be anyone the state dislikes.
Meh, it's an act of collaboration to chose not to call nazi terrorists, "nazi terrorists".
It's losing objectivity for the sake of appearing to keep it.
It's losing objectivity for the sake of appearing to keep it.
November 11, 2025 at 9:58 PM
Meh, it's an act of collaboration to chose not to call nazi terrorists, "nazi terrorists".
It's losing objectivity for the sake of appearing to keep it.
It's losing objectivity for the sake of appearing to keep it.
Our legal system prides itself on objectivity, yet true objectivity requires understanding all human realities including the neurodivergent mind.
Rethinking ‘reasonableness’: Why law must see the neurodivergent mind
www.dailymaverick.co.za
November 11, 2025 at 9:50 PM
Our legal system prides itself on objectivity, yet true objectivity requires understanding all human realities including the neurodivergent mind.
Andrade called Dave's dog ugly or something because there ia absolutely no objectivity left in him. Toxic shit
November 11, 2025 at 9:33 PM
Andrade called Dave's dog ugly or something because there ia absolutely no objectivity left in him. Toxic shit
Pleasure to join Stephen on @TimesRadio earlier to talk about BBC, objectivity, and Trump.
November 11, 2025 at 9:18 PM
Pleasure to join Stephen on @TimesRadio earlier to talk about BBC, objectivity, and Trump.
It’s precisely those levels of trust that cause problems if/when objectivity and proper balance fail.
Over-exposure of one side, without any real challenge to what they say, imbues that side with an authority and authenticity that they wouldn’t have with a more balanced approach.
Over-exposure of one side, without any real challenge to what they say, imbues that side with an authority and authenticity that they wouldn’t have with a more balanced approach.
November 11, 2025 at 9:10 PM
It’s precisely those levels of trust that cause problems if/when objectivity and proper balance fail.
Over-exposure of one side, without any real challenge to what they say, imbues that side with an authority and authenticity that they wouldn’t have with a more balanced approach.
Over-exposure of one side, without any real challenge to what they say, imbues that side with an authority and authenticity that they wouldn’t have with a more balanced approach.
Very true! Honestly in that regard my pick could be a bigger bunch of boxes than this but trying to pin this stuff down with objectivity is impossible. Gender experience is inherently subjective and insanely confusing!
I'm... nb but masc leaning. Ish. Maybe. The agender aspect throws me entirely! 🫠
I'm... nb but masc leaning. Ish. Maybe. The agender aspect throws me entirely! 🫠
November 11, 2025 at 8:37 PM
Very true! Honestly in that regard my pick could be a bigger bunch of boxes than this but trying to pin this stuff down with objectivity is impossible. Gender experience is inherently subjective and insanely confusing!
I'm... nb but masc leaning. Ish. Maybe. The agender aspect throws me entirely! 🫠
I'm... nb but masc leaning. Ish. Maybe. The agender aspect throws me entirely! 🫠
Transference & Countertransference are always on the table. Identifying your emotional triggers before they impact the session is the cornerstone of professional objectivity. Stay reflective. 🧠
#SocialWork #ClinicalSkills #Psychotherapy #MSW
#SocialWork #ClinicalSkills #Psychotherapy #MSW
November 11, 2025 at 7:59 PM
Transference & Countertransference are always on the table. Identifying your emotional triggers before they impact the session is the cornerstone of professional objectivity. Stay reflective. 🧠
#SocialWork #ClinicalSkills #Psychotherapy #MSW
#SocialWork #ClinicalSkills #Psychotherapy #MSW
That layer of separation from the individual under this conglomerate of reviews by different people cultivates an impression of objectivity. So it feels weird when they take a very subjective moral angle on a game they otherwise enjoy and dock the score. I'm not daying that's good or bad just odd.
November 11, 2025 at 7:51 PM
That layer of separation from the individual under this conglomerate of reviews by different people cultivates an impression of objectivity. So it feels weird when they take a very subjective moral angle on a game they otherwise enjoy and dock the score. I'm not daying that's good or bad just odd.
”It has been said [by the ancient ones with tentacles for mouths and beaks for tongues, whose eyes were wide like the rings of Saturn, but dark and mysterious] that the Sun burns Mercury when they are too near one other, resulting in obscured objectivity and increased subjectivity. “ ~ HS
November 11, 2025 at 7:51 PM
”It has been said [by the ancient ones with tentacles for mouths and beaks for tongues, whose eyes were wide like the rings of Saturn, but dark and mysterious] that the Sun burns Mercury when they are too near one other, resulting in obscured objectivity and increased subjectivity. “ ~ HS
Not objectivity - which is arguably enhanced by the explication of one's perspective & method - but rather neutrality!
November 11, 2025 at 7:41 PM
Not objectivity - which is arguably enhanced by the explication of one's perspective & method - but rather neutrality!
Holy fuck I hate journalistic editorial ‘objectivity.’ It completely removes all meaning. It’s as if the gun is at fault. 🙄
November 11, 2025 at 7:38 PM
Holy fuck I hate journalistic editorial ‘objectivity.’ It completely removes all meaning. It’s as if the gun is at fault. 🙄
@andrewhickey.500songs.com The bogus "two-sides" framing is actually an old centrist trick - back in the 70s the BBC would say "we got complaints from both sides so we must be objective", and it was always false reasoning. The right always fucking complains; caving to it does not equal objectivity.
November 11, 2025 at 7:37 PM
@andrewhickey.500songs.com The bogus "two-sides" framing is actually an old centrist trick - back in the 70s the BBC would say "we got complaints from both sides so we must be objective", and it was always false reasoning. The right always fucking complains; caving to it does not equal objectivity.
Me neither, I'd like to know where it's situated. Narratologically speaking, everything is prefaced by "The author says/writes" anyway: thus, no need for awkward passives and "this paper argues" nonsense, no? It can't shake of the feeling that it is a remnant of a certain idea of objectivity.
November 11, 2025 at 6:58 PM
Me neither, I'd like to know where it's situated. Narratologically speaking, everything is prefaced by "The author says/writes" anyway: thus, no need for awkward passives and "this paper argues" nonsense, no? It can't shake of the feeling that it is a remnant of a certain idea of objectivity.
100%. Corporate governance is a sham. BODs will never vote down a C-suite comp package b/c it would open the door for the same treatment at the BODs' companies. They hire comp consulting to put a veneer of objectivity on comp. It's bullshit.
November 11, 2025 at 6:27 PM
100%. Corporate governance is a sham. BODs will never vote down a C-suite comp package b/c it would open the door for the same treatment at the BODs' companies. They hire comp consulting to put a veneer of objectivity on comp. It's bullshit.
You said (and seem to have subsequently deleted) "surely objectivity is not taking sides". I replied to that under the apparent misapprehension that you replying to something I said in a way that implied you wanted to discuss an area of disagreement meant you actually wanted a conversation.
November 11, 2025 at 6:14 PM
You said (and seem to have subsequently deleted) "surely objectivity is not taking sides". I replied to that under the apparent misapprehension that you replying to something I said in a way that implied you wanted to discuss an area of disagreement meant you actually wanted a conversation.
barring a few exceptions, journalism uses the patina of "objectivity" to propagate the owning class's ideologies, propaganda and goals.
November 11, 2025 at 6:08 PM
barring a few exceptions, journalism uses the patina of "objectivity" to propagate the owning class's ideologies, propaganda and goals.
No, impartiality is not taking sides. Objectivity is taking the side of fact over fiction. The two are the same when it comes to matters of opinion, but very different when it comes to matters of fact.
November 11, 2025 at 5:52 PM
No, impartiality is not taking sides. Objectivity is taking the side of fact over fiction. The two are the same when it comes to matters of opinion, but very different when it comes to matters of fact.
totally. and they have that little bit of objectivity and situational observation that makes you (in the audience) feel like you’re not the only one who sees things…
silly, but i’m the guy who always gets a crush on the sarcastic best friend who isn’t quite as ‘hot’ as the lead.
silly, but i’m the guy who always gets a crush on the sarcastic best friend who isn’t quite as ‘hot’ as the lead.
November 11, 2025 at 5:48 PM
totally. and they have that little bit of objectivity and situational observation that makes you (in the audience) feel like you’re not the only one who sees things…
silly, but i’m the guy who always gets a crush on the sarcastic best friend who isn’t quite as ‘hot’ as the lead.
silly, but i’m the guy who always gets a crush on the sarcastic best friend who isn’t quite as ‘hot’ as the lead.