Objectivity vs. Impartiality
It is common to require us journalists to be objective and impartial at the same time, which is a contradiction. We are either objective, or we are impartial. But we can not be both at the same time.
Objectivity is sticking to the facts, being guided by the evidence and considering an event will be closer to the truth the more supporting evidence it has.
Meanwhile, impartiality is not taking sides (lets see who can do this), to give up making value judgments and treat as equivalent different versions of an event, believing the truth is in the middle. The existence of gravity and it’s denying do not add points to be closer to the truth.
Knowing more points of view doesn’t move you towards or away from the truth, as long as those views are not supported by the evidence. To state otherwise is an expression of the childish notion of respecting beliefs that has been made popular due to postmodernism, but the thing is… facts are not impartial!
Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney and the Nazis committed genocide killing millions of people.
Impartiality relativizes facts. It is to believe that both the Nazis and the Allies had their good reasons, that they both could be right and that it is wrong to take sides.
I am not, nor I intend to be impartial — I do as much as I can to base my views and opinions on the best available evidence. I’m not afraid to choose sides and to say that, objectively, there are some cultures, ideas, beliefs and opinions that are better than others.
How come it took the BBC so long to get it?