In both science, and journalism.

The notion that journalists are, or should be, or can be "objective" is perhaps the profession's most fatal conceit. As Virginia Postrel says, what's important is to be fair, something that they often don't even attempt, as demonstrated by CNN and its performance in the debates.

The notion that journalists are, or should be, or can be "objective" is perhaps the profession's most fatal conceit.

Yes, their profession is a false and fruitless pursuit of a so-called "objective reality". They would be more virtuous and more successful if instead they were fair to the beliefs of the audience.

Thanks for demonstrating your unerring ability to completely miss the point.

This was the first Republican debate I watched start to finish. I honestly came away with the impression of overwhelming small-mindedness and nastiness.

The only person with any real appeal seemed to be Fred Thompson. And he refused to pander to the questions.

And even though I agree with Ron Paul on some topics, he seems to be living in a different age that can't be entered. Huckabee is a good man in the wrong party. Not that I have much love for the Dems and Hillary in particular but anyone can beat this bunch. Giuliani will self destruct and Romney is just an ultra flip flopping smarm who probably wishes he wasn't born Mormon.

So is this description from the Weekly Standard of the GOP questioners fair?

So, a good night for for the lowest denominator, a bad night for the GOP. America got to see a vaguely threatening parade of gun fetishists, flat worlders, Mars Explorers, Confederate flag lovers and zombie-eyed-Bible-wavers as well as various one issue activists hammering their pet causes.

I just think the description misses the number one topic - driving illegal immigrants and every single one of their relatives and children out of here. That's what the GOP has become, and it's actually sad, since the alternative isn't so appealing either.

I've often thought that the notion of being "completely objective" is not a realistic goal.

First, there is the obvious issue that we all have our own biases and experiences. To think that I can, through force of will, lay all that aside and become "completely objective" (and, incidentally, if you then say I'm not objective you're wrong), I think is to deceive oneself.

Second, I think there is objective truth. If I am going to be "completely objective" in reporting a debate, for example, between a group who believes the moon landings were a hoax and a group who does not, what exactly does that mean? I guess the idea is that I lay out the arguments of both sides as reasonably as possible, trying as hard as possible not to put my own incredulousness about the hoaxer's beliefs on display. Yet is this "objective?" If I, in reporting, give equal weight to spurious arguments and evidences, is that really "objective" or is that lending weight to something that is not objectively true, and therefore not "objective."

What I think is better is to have an opinion but at least acknowledge that you have an opinion and be willing to recognize that you are wrong some of the time.

I heard a comment about this vis-a-vis economic reporting. When reporters go to write a story, they find one economist who thinks the economy is good, and, for balance, one who thinks it is bad. The viewer is left with the impression that economists are split. Yet it might be the case that 95% of economists think the economy is good, while 5% think it is bad. Or that might be the case, but the 5% that think it is bad might contain those that have actually been proved to be right most of the time historically.

The way we're heading now seems better. Instead of having anointed "journalists" who are paragons of "objectivity," let all the people who want to get all the information out there, and let consumers of the information make judgments. The more we do it, the better we should get at it. I hope.

So is this description from the Weekly Standard of the GOP questioners fair?

The problem is, they weren't "GOP questioners." It turns out now that several of them were Democrat plants.

Several of them?

The Gay General (why does that sound odd?) was apparently a Hillary plant. Wow, she has time to do this while wrestling Obama. Maybe Rand you should vote for her, imagine what she would do with Ahmedenijad. On the other hand imagine what she would do to you if she came to power and knew about your regular rants on her.

Anyway, who else was a Democrat plant?

Everyone is biased, and it is difficult for anyone to avoid being influenced by his own biases, particularly when his colleagues (i.e., fellow journalists) tend to come from similar backgrounds and have similar biases. The best solution is disclosure of biases, and competition. The fading MSM model of mandarin-journalists pretending (even to themselves) that they can somehow be above their own biases, while deciding for everyone else what information is to be presented, doesn't work and may never have worked.

Anyway, who else was a Democrat plant?

The union lady, the pro-Edwards lady. All a meaningless coincidence, I'm sure.

Oh yeah: the "Log Cabin Republican" pro-Obama guy too.

Don't you read blogs?

Could it be also that CNN selects its "average gun owner" questioners to misrepresent average gun owners as unbalanced losers? Say it ain't so!

Heh. The biggest Democrat plant may be Giuliani. And, the gall of the guy he doesn't even flip-flop like Romney.

Don't you read blogs?

Apparently not fast enough, and not to your satisfaction anyway.

"Apparently not fast enough, and not to your satisfaction anyway."

Your loss, not ours. It is you who choses to dumb down you posts by making them with less than complete information. We just make note of it.

Mike,

Who exactly are you talking about when you say yours and ours . First, what are you? Some kind of hired hand who patrols this blog and decides which side every commenter here is on ?

I could take the comment if the author of the comment was Rand. But from you?

In any case, getting back to the questions, and addressing myself to the more civil of you out there, immigration is probably the most important issue to the Republican base. Likewise for many of the dominant questions yesterday, such as guns etc. which clearly fire up the base. So, even if the questioners were all Hillary's agents, the majority of the questions themselves seem representative.

Offside,

Mike is right. If you choose to make comments here out of ignorance, the rest of us will note it. We will even take great strides to make the correction under the same post. Mike didn't suggest a side, he simply noted what others are willing to do.

He's also not being uncivilized. Indeed, Mike's comment to you was far more reasonable than your comment to Jonathan or Mike. The fact that his comment and yours reflects poorly on you is your problem, not everyone elses.

By the way, CAIR had a plant as well.

Back to topic:

So, even if the questioners were all Hillary's agents, the majority of the questions themselves seem representative.

That's not true. They may be representative of Liberal viewpoints and reasonable for a DNC debate or general population debate. They are not representative of undecided voters, particular those who would vote GOP but not sure which candidate for that party. CNN didn't provide a service to liberterian or conservative voters, and further, they have no been caught in a lie about their practices in vetting questioners. Now that's in the open: CNN's loss, our gain. (Our being everyone who now know's CNN's credibility and weighs their coverage of events accordingly)