A while back, someone with the screen name
Fair & Balanced queried me in the comments section of
this post:
Hello Mack Harrision. I would like to ask you one simple question? Are you objective?
SHORT ANSWER: No.
MEDIUM ANSWER: I call
bullshit when I see it, and if that makes me unobjective in some people's eyes, then so be it.
LONG ANSWER: When I was opinion editor at
The Monitor (and in my years as a reporter before that), whenever readers agreed with what I wrote, then according to them I was objective and fair. Whenever they didn't agree with what I wrote, I was horribly, horribly biased.
In other words, if you like what I have to say, you won't complain about lack of objectivity. On the other hand, if you hate what I'm telling you, it means I must have some sort of slant against your beliefs.
So if I slaughter someone's sacred cow, it must be because I'm not objective -- not because their beloved institution or individual screwed up.
LAWYER ANSWER: My dictionary (
Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary, 1984) defines the word "objective" (
adj.) as
"Uninfluenced by emotion, surmise or personal opinion." Since the whole point of this blog is for me to rant about "the political idiocy" taking place in the Rio Grande Valley,
of course it's influenced by my emotions (I do some of my best writing when I'm pissed off), conjectures (it's easy to put two and two together and make an educated guess about what's going on) and opinions (supplemented by my education and experience). So no, I'm not objective according to that definition.
But.
The dictionary lists another definition for objectivity as
"Based on observable phenomena (an objective forecast)." I try to base my posts on facts, whether obtained from the media, other sources on the Internet or my own personal knowledge. However, I also have more than a dozen years experience as a journalist, as well as my time in South Texas and my education and other life experience (including somewhat obscure pop culture references) upon which to draw. So I take what I see and factor all this other stuff into the observation to come up with something (hopefully) relevant.
Just like the weatherman applies his knowledge, observations and experience to make a report, I use what's already in my head to offer a new take on what's going on in the world (after all, a forecast is just the meteorologist's opinion on what the weather holds). I try to add to the conversation, not just parrot what everyone else is saying.
So if you want to apply the second definition of "objective," then yes, I am objective. If that's stretching it a little too far, then see my short answer above.