Zackary Corbett

Be Objective not Apathetic

I recently had to write a news story on the SOPA/PIPA blackouts occurring in protest of the horrible legislation. My editor wanted me to be objective, which I tried my best to do. It’s not easy to be objective with a seething hatred coursing through your veins and this piping through your ears, but I think I did a pretty good job. My editor did not.

Here’s the deal, I pointed out all te legitimate flaws of SOPA and PIPA as well as what they’re intended to do¹, that’s being objective. My editor wanted me to be apathetic (though zhe said “objective,” zhe meant apathetic), which means, in zher² eyes, pointing out no flaws and no benefits to either side. That is. not. being objective. Being objective is point out all the things right and wrong with something. If there happens to be twenty things right and one thing wrong, or vice-versa, pointing all of them out is being objective. Pointing zero out either way, or selectively choosing one thing right and wrong when there are twenty things right and wrong for both sides is not being objective. With such thinking and editing as this, you’re doing your readership a huge disservice.

Why would you effectively censor yourself on a bill about corporate purchased censorship?

So you can see the difference in an example, I’ll provide on for you. Here’s apathetic:

“Today Hitler continued his campaign and congresses eastern Germany. While many people oppose his war, others in favor of it say that the war will only make humanity stronger.”

Here’s objective:

“Hitler continued his campaign today and conquered eastern Germany. The total death toll in this latest crusade is 2,317 bringing the total death toll since the beginning of the war to 17,546. Most of the public disagrees with the campaign citing that it is gruesome murder of innocents and that genocide isn’t a good thing. Others who support the war say that the human race will be better for the cleansing.”