Lancet Formally Retracts Fake Hydroxychloroquine Study Used By Media To Attack Trump

I asserted that
Claiming to be objective is arrogance.
. . . to which you replied,

Not exactly. That way lies nihilism.
The US Founders, like the Old Testament figures, established judges (of good character) but still made checks and balances as even good people can turn and sometimes bad people get in.

My response to which is that you are correct as far as you go - but you yourself aren’t exactly on point.
Let us take the late - and very lamented - Justice Scalia as an example. A judge of good - I would say sterling - character, n'est-ce pas?
Justice Scalia asserted that whenever he found himself getting enthusiastic about an opinion he was writing, he redoubled his efforts to see that where he stood did not depend on where he sat. This to my mind expressed excellent character - and a realization that he himself was not intrinsically objective.
Objectivity is a lofty goal, but not a state of being. Someone who claims to be trying to be objective - and actually is trying - does well. But whoso claims actually to be objective proves the contrary. Proves, in fact, that they are not even trying to be objective - because in their own minds they intrinsically are objective and so they don’t have to do the tedious work of trying to figure out how where they stand might depend on where they sit.
The work of trying to be objective is tedious because people naturally think their own opinions are right - else they wouldn’t be their opinions. Consequently, scrutinizing one's own opinions from the POV that there is a likelihood that they might in fact be wrong is a hard discipline.
What we see in journalism is a cabal of people who assume their own opinions are right - and put unanimity for objectivity. The reality being, that journalism is intrinsically ~~objective~~ ^_negative._ And their claim that their own, knowing, negativity is “objective” logically maps to a claim that “negativity is objectivity.”
And "the conceit that negativity is objectivity” is my own personal definition - better, IMHO, than the dictionary’s - for cynicism.
Journalism is cynical about society. And since cynicism towards one thing logically maps to naiveté about its opposite, journalism is also naive about society’s opposite, namely government.
Thus, “the media” as we experience it. Well, that and the fact that the wire services intrinsically homogenize the opinions which are planted axioms in journalism.

Thanks for the post; ping; thread. Free speech? GONE (the platforms are rapidly disappearing). On the other hand...Free programming/propaganda...WAIT...WE HAVE BREAKING NEWS!

Even paying to be deceived/programmed through fascist cable companies.

Hey Jim that U.S. post office was closed in the lobby. Silly me. Instead that $100.00 money order was Western Union from the local grocery story, Meijer. As has been said, “the check’s in the mail”. Thank you, sir.

There’s a sign on the wall but she wants to be sure
‘Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings.
In a tree by the brook, there’s a songbird who sings,
Sometimes all of our thoughts are misgiven.

Ooh, it makes me wonder,
Ooh, it makes me wonder.

There’s a feeling I get when I look to the west,
And my spirit is crying for leaving.
In my thoughts I have seen rings of smoke through the trees,
And the voices of those who stand looking.

Ooh, it makes me wonder,
Ooh, it really makes me wonder.

And it’s whispered that soon, if we all call the tune,
Then the piper will lead us to reason.
And a new day will dawn for those who stand long,
And the forests will echo with laughter.

Led Zeppelin - Stairway to Heaven

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbhCPt6PZIU

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/objectivity.html

“A” is “A”

Objectivity

¶
Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). This means that although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge—that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers—and that there can be no such thing as a final “authority” in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically—one’s own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second.

The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question “Who decides what is right or wrong?” is wrong. Nobody “decides.” Nature does not decide—it merely is; man does not decide, in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is. When it comes to applying his knowledge, man decides what he chooses to do, according to what he has learned, remembering that the basic principle of rational action in all aspects of human existence, is: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” This means that man does not create reality and can achieve his values only by making his decisions consonant with the facts of reality.

The Objectivist Newsletter “Who Is the Final Authority in Ethics?”
The Objectivist Newsletter, Feb. 1965, 7

¶
Objectivity begins with the realization that man (including his every attribute and faculty, including his consciousness) is an entity of a specific nature who must act accordingly; that there is no escape from the law of identity, neither in the universe with which he deals nor in the working of his own consciousness, and if he is to acquire knowledge of the first, he must discover the proper method of using the second; that there is no room for the arbitrary in any activity of man, least of all in his method of cognition—and just as he has learned to be guided by objective criteria in making his physical tools, so he must be guided by objective criteria in forming his tools of cognition: his concepts.

Thread BUMP!

Breath deep
The gathering gloom
Watch lights fade
From every room
Bedsitter people
Look back and lament
Another day’s useless
Energy spent

Impassioned lovers
Wrestle as one
Lonely man cries for love
And has none
New mother picks up
And suckles her son
Senior citizens
Wish they were young

Cold hearted orb
That rules the night
Removes the colours
From our sight
Red is gray and
Yellow white
But we decide
Which is right
And
Which is an Illusion

Moody Blues - Nights in White Satin

Objectivity begins with the realization that man (including his every attribute and faculty, including his consciousness) is an entity of a specific nature who must act accordingly; that there is no escape from the law of identity, neither in the universe with which he deals nor in the working of his own consciousness, and if he is to acquire knowledge of the first, he must discover the proper method of using the second; that there is no room for the arbitrary in any activity of man, least of all in his method of cognition—and just as he has learned to be guided by objective criteria in making his physical tools, so he must be guided by objective criteria in forming his tools of cognition: his concepts.

Hmmmm . . . heavy.
Sounds like it might be right, even profound - but I’d like help from reading other FReepers’ takes on it.
I’m not feeling ambitious . . .

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.