The whole sort of debate of classic objective journalism versus a new immersion journalism - that can go on forever... I made no bones about my position: I don't think you can be objective.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
When I was in journalism school, you were taught to be completely objective. But we don't see that anymore.
I was a lousy journalist. I could never be objective. Sometimes I invented the whole story.
With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.
You have to attempt to be objective about yourself.
Objective journalism is one of the main reasons that American politics has been allowed to be so corrupt for so long.
Objective journalism and an opinion column are about as similar as the Bible and Playboy magazine.
The journalistic endeavor - at least theoretically - is grounded in objectivity. The goal is to get you to understand what happened, when and to whom.
We journalists make it a point to know very little about an extremely wide variety of topics; this is how we stay objective.
Journalism: an ability to meet the challenge of filling the space.
I still believe that if your aim is to change the world, journalism is a more immediate short-term weapon.
No opposing quotes found.