So, let me get this straight now.
No matter how we judge ourselves, our news, our styles, or our abilities,
we will none-the-less always be in the persuasion mode?
Then this is almost a rhetorical - paradoxical situation.
No matter how much we try to avoid the objective persuasion factor, we come
full circle and there we are.
As for the BBC, it's news reporting services are seen as the best and most
objective in the world. The most slanted, according to some magazines which
I have read, is out own United States Information Agency's Voice Of America.
The next most subjective is the former Radio Moscow.
Now, even though the BBC has a great almost non-subjective non-persuasive
style down, they too have problems. Whenever a bomb goes off in the UK,
99 percent of the time it will be labeled as one from the IRA. With or
without evidential proof, I've heard the BBC say it has to be an IRA
So where does this debate lead us? If we want to show the public something
such as a news story or a documentary, it will always be slanted and we will
only show that which we want to in order to illustrate the situation, thus
we are persuading the audience into seeing only what we want them to.
So, no matter how you slice it, it always comes up subjective. Ofcourse,
we are always trying to get away from that... aren't we?