Paper-thin argument

As the newspaper declines, so does the rationale for conventional objectivity | Marvin Olasky

Sometimes philosophical debates are just word-flinging. At other times, though, material change allows innovators to put new ideas into practice quickly. This is such a time for journalism.

For nearly two decades I've been writing now and then about the shortcomings of the conventional journalistic definition of "objectivity" as purportedly value-free neutrality. I've noted its philosophical and practical limitations and proposed that Christians should practice biblical objectivity: Since God knows the real nature of things and we do not, we should as much as possible—given our position as fallen sinners—try to see everything through the lens of God's inspired book.

Two books of mine from the '80s and '90s that are now online, Prodigal Press and Telling the Truth, lay out that analysis. Some Christian journalists subscribe to it but others remain wedded to conventional objectivity, arguing that the 20th-century doctrine is our best bet for getting mostly factual information to the most people. Now, though, the internet is chopping away at that rationale.