In a recent message, Mark asked: "If we are to have a 'humanistic
journalism' what should be the teller's position in relationship to the
subject and the audience?" He also stipulated that he wished this
discussion to go beyond the "old 'objectivity vs. subjectivity'
I think that means we have to go back to question A: what is journalism?
In terms of media-"realism" this question has become particularly
difficult to respond to (for me anyway) because it is so hard to find
the line between the "truth", the subjective emphasis of the journalist
and the subjective interpretation of the audience. I think, because
this line between objectivity and subjectivity is so hard to define is
why you, Mark, wish to throw it out, right? Or perhaps you are also
working from the post-Kantian (post-modernist?) angle, beyond dualistic
thought? Okay then, it seems to me that you must not only ask what the
teller's position, in relationship to the subject and the audience is,
but question the subject's and the audience's positions as well. Hmmmm.
If journalism is a kind of historical recording, it is also a form of
storytelling (histoire -- history, fiction). So I think that Carol
Beck's placing herself in her Russian film as "concrete character" helps
to both define the position of the teller, but also fictionalizes her.
So, then, what does that mean in terms of subjectivity?
As you can see, I don't really have an answer, just some ideas as to how
to work out this question. What do the rest of you think?