The Missing Ingredient: Objectivity 582.4
How much weight would you give to a proud mother’s judgment as to the talent, intelligence, or good looks of her child?
|
|
In evaluating the necessity and propriety of Russia’s invasion of Georgia, would it be rational to listen only to ethnic Russians or Georgians?
Wise decision-makers require additional evidence because the credibility of the testimony of proud parents and passionate patriots is tainted by a lack of objectivity.
That’s why we disqualify trial judges and police detectives from cases involving relatives and why we don’t let employees make purchasing decisions when they have a financial interest in the outcome.
The missing ingredient in the current Presidential campaign is objectivity.
Although the better news anchors maintain neutrality, they seem more interested in generating heat than light, dissension rather than discourse. They choose clashing and contentious partisans who assault our sensibilities, scorning and mocking each other, often without any show of civility.
Driven more by opportunism than integrity and unencumbered by the concept of consistency, they keep changing the target, arguing whatever might strengthen their case. Often, it’s hard to conceive that they believe what they’re saying.
First, we need to discount the opinions of blindly loyal partisans who, regardless of the issue, interpret every new fact as confirmation of their previous position.
Second, and much harder, we need to challenge our own willingness and ability to be objective in determining what’s true and relevant.
If we only listen to or believe people who agree with us and filter out every fact and argument that could justify a change of mind, we become them – blindly loyal partisans – and that’s an irresponsible waste of our power to choose.
This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.
Comments
After reading today's commentary (8/28/08) I do not want to receive your email again. I will mute your commentary on 1070 whenever it comes on.
Posted by: Patricia | September 2, 2008 4:12 PM
My sentiments exactly! I miss reading more objective news reports rather than today's items conjured up only to stir up controversy. Thank you! I couldn't have said it better.
Posted by: BB | September 4, 2008 8:26 PM
The missing ingredient in the current political charade is indeed what you say: the absence of objectivity by most in all places at all levels. That's what it's all about:
"Politics, n.
Strife of interests masquerading as
a contest of principles." ~ Ambrose Bierce
Richard B. Boddie
The BODDIE POLITIC
Posted by: Richard B. Boddie | September 4, 2008 9:11 PM
Thank you, Patricia. You made his point.
Posted by: Neill | September 4, 2008 10:32 PM
It is interesting to read your comment on objectivity after just reading your glowing comments and the tears in your eyes about the democratic nominee for President. I'm sorry...I fail to see your objectivity.
Practice what you preach.
Here is my objectivity - I'm voting for John McCain.
Posted by: steve holt | September 5, 2008 7:00 AM
I don't know what this person disagrees with. Is it that they object to being objective?
Posted by: Carol | September 5, 2008 9:20 AM
Reading this article made we wonder where fits the second paragraph. You just threw that in there without yourself understanding who attacked who. Please go back to your comments "What I Hate and Love About Politics"
Posted by: Suren | September 5, 2008 1:16 PM
Did I miss something Steve? Did Michael Josephson ever claim to be a news reporter, someone who the public might expect to be writing in a nonbiased or objective manner? And speaking of votes, my vote is with Neil …. Patricia’s close- minded reaction was a classic example and right to the point of the article.
Posted by: John | September 5, 2008 1:43 PM
I heard this on KNX radio this evening. This is one of the most outstanding assessments of politics today I have seen. I am posting it in my classroom and e-mailing it to all my very partisan neighbors.
Posted by: Prof. J. Mike Reed | September 6, 2008 9:13 PM
How oddly we reinforce the point Mr. Josephson makes. By being partisan and refusing to listen to a contrasting opinion, we truly take the road to narrow-mindedness. If left to its worst conclusion, the descent is into bigotry and hate.
Posted by: Larry Nelson | October 3, 2008 8:08 AM
I have listened to your commentaries for many years and have enjoyed and appreciated them greatly on the whole, including this one on objectivity. However, I must call you on your sentimental drivel regarding the national conventions since the Democratic nominee is absolutely disqualified to be President of the United States under our Constitution. You, as a former professor, should be intimately aware of the legal requirements to be President, and now as a full-time ethicist should be loudly militant in pointing out that the requirements have not been met. I recognize that your institute, as a nonprofit organization, cannot violate IRS fairness policies, but that should not prevent you from demanding documentation from all of the Presidential candidates showing that they are qualified candidates according to Constitutional mandates and then reporting fairly and honestly what you find. I have come to believe that rather than being a “ship of State,” we have become a “commuter train of State” and the conductors are all texting just 22 seconds before the train wreck.
Posted by: Bill Tolley | October 18, 2008 12:59 PM
Bill, please enlighten the rest of us about why the Democratic nominee has not met the legal requirements to be President under the Constitution.
Posted by: john | October 20, 2008 10:17 AM
The Democratic nominee is qualified to be the President. He was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen as per the requirements of the Office of the Presidency.
The same question may have legitimately been raised about the Republican nominee, who was born in Panama. However, that candidate is able to claim citizenship through the nationality of his parents.
For more info, go to http://www.presidentsusa.net/qualifications.html
Posted by: Amanda | October 23, 2008 12:57 PM