SCREEN-L Archives

February 1993

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
"P.J. O'Connell (PA) 814-865-3333" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 27 Feb 1993 21:06:00 EST
In-Reply-To:
37PSVFB AT CMUVM.BITNET -- Sat, 27 Feb 1993 19:13:28 EST
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (16 lines)
Without wanting to run this thread into the ground too much farther:
 
         Nothing is SUBJECTIVE.
 
         Nothing is OBJECTIVE.
 
         Everything (in this discussion) is relative, in one
         direction or the other, to those two unattainable absolutes.
 
It would help the discussion if we could agree to be more exact in our
terminology, and I'd suggest that the above statements MIGHT be the
basis for some agreement.  "Journalists are (more)(less) objective than
advertising writers."  "Micheal Moore is (more)(less) subjective than
Fred Wiseman."  Does that make any sense?  (I know it's simplistic, but
sometimes KISS helps.)

ATOM RSS1 RSS2