Intellectual Honesty

In today’s Washington Post, Michael Kinsley argues that the demise of objectivity in journalism may not be an entirely bad thing, if it can be replaced by a journalism that, while opinionated, is still based on intellectual honesty.  He poses questions that we in the church ought to be asking ourselves — and each other — as we gear up for what promises to be a contentious General Convention 2006.

Kinsley says:

Opinion journalism can be more honest than objective-style journalism, because it doesn’t have to hide its point of view.

All observations are subjective. Writers freed of artificial objectivity can try to determine the whole truth about their subject and then tell it whole to the world.

Their “objective” counterparts have to sort their subjective observations into two arbitrary piles: truths that are objective as well, and truths that are just an opinion.  That second pile of truths cannot be published, except perhaps as a quote from someone else.

Without the pretense of objectivity, the fundamental journalist’s obligation of factual accuracy would remain. Opinion journalism brings new ethical obligations as well. These can be summarized in two words: intellectual honesty.

• Are you writing or saying what you really think?
• Have you tested it against the available counterarguments?
• Will you stand by an expressed principle in different situations, when it leads to an unpleasing conclusion?
• Are you open to new evidence or an argument that might change your mind?
• Do you retain at least a tiny, healthy sliver of a doubt about the argument you choose to make?

(Michael Kinsley, The Twighlight of Objectivity, Washington Post, March 31, 2006, p. A19; emphasis, extra paragraphing, and bulleting added.)