Recent comments by Ernie and kjf (sorry for not having a more normal name to attach to this list member) indicate a rather disturbing tendency on the part of some to use objective/subjective debates of the sort that has recently been taking place on this list as a weapon against, for lack of a better word, post-modern thinking on this subject. I'm not sure that one couldn't launch a critique of the post-modern based on some of what's been written here, but Ernie and kjf, it seems to me, have failed to do it. Ernie's example of the quarterback (" . . . felt depressed" = subjective; "said he felt depressed" = objective) and kjf's example of the President's trip ("the purpose of the trip is . . ." = subjective; "White House sources indicate that the purpose of the trip is . . ." = objective) both make the same mistake. Even in the case of the supposedly "objective" accounts offered by Ernie and kjf, the notion that the quarterback's feelings are important or that the opinions of "White House sources" (a rather grand term for someone who might well be a communications flunky) are critical things to report are decisions that must be made subjectively. To suggest (as I image Ernie and kjf would) that these are important because of some external notion of journalistic standards is merely to deny responsibility. I fail to see what is so objective about our current canon of journalistic importance (see the earlier discussion about being photographed in front of the White House). Most disturbing of all is kjf's suggestion that somehow all of this denial of journalistic subjectivity is part and parcel of some sort of assault on "critical thinking." Quite the opposite, I would say. By largely ditching the notion of journalistic objectivity, I would hope we would be simultaneously calling on all readers to read EVERYTHING critically, to be unwilling to accept ANYTHING as "just the facts." I _can_ imagine an argument against notions of objectivity that would be based on some fairly mushy ideas of "everyone's opinions are as good or as bad as everyone else's" but that's not what I'm reading in this discussion. -- Ben Alpers Princeton University