cit. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/…..?s=oldest&

Frankly, I believe (on mere faith!) that Mr. Filkins books will be helpful more as a war travelogue, rather than as a means for a serious understanding of the wars he observed. He tries to imply that understanding is up to the reader…but by failing to acknowledge his own complicity in the events he describes…that is the fact that there were certain people he could not talk to and could not observe…or that, if he did talk to them or observe them, he could not report on them…he fails to acknowledge the boundaries of his objectivity…and continued to maintain that he was completely objective and not subjective in his observations. That having been said, I might read his book, but I certainly won’t believe that what he is describing is what actually occurred. He is somehow raising himself to that of the ultimate impartial observer…an impossibility in any human interaction, let alone a war. And certainly a stance that should never be trusted, especially when he does not relate his thoughts or “prism”, if you will, through which would or might influence his journalism. Of course, he can claim that he was “entirely objective” but the fact remains that that is, as we all should know by now, an impossibility. Further, I find his stance that he is more objective than others on this board to be…offensive. Perhaps if he was less arrogant?

Ah well. No doubt he mentions his interactions with Judith Miller in his book? I mean, wasn’t she assigned to the Iraq desk for NYT for awhile? If anyone has read the book, is she mentioned in there at all?

deep in epu land, but will comment anyway.

one aspect of today’s conversation i especially wish i’d been around to ask about is on reporting at the NYT and the concept of objectivity, because i don’t understand it at all. in fact, it seems to me a serious weakness and not a strength of the reporting. i like to joke that the first commandment at the NYT must be: Thou shall not connect the dots, although it’s really no joke. i completely agree with the the idea that the details need to be reported and are the foundation of good reporting. however, it strikes me as strange if there is no attempt to connect the dots, to try to make sense of the details. is journalism not intended to extend the knowledge and understanding of the reader? it’s like saying that darwin should have gone on his trips but only collected samples and described what he saw but never tried to make sense of or explain his observations.

even more than that though, i disagree that objectivity is about “fairness and soundness of judgement.” i think gould had it exactly right:

“Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny — and also in a willingness to revise or abandon your theories when the tests fail (as they usually do).”
— Stephen Jay Gould

we all have points of view, opinions and biases. objectivity, imo, has nothing to do with denying this about ourselves or suppressing it – instead it’s about attempting to identify our biases, etc and then take them into account as gould describes.

is journalism really so very different? should it be?

Do you at least mention Joe Haldeman somewhere for appropriating it?

And please accept our apologies for commenters who do not show respect for someone who has taken the time to research and write such a fine book and to come here for discussion. I think we’re all still a little overwrought from the election.

Peace.

And this was a great discussion for we humble lurkers.