There's a name for subjective journalism, it's called opinion pieces. Objective journalism, i.e. the news, should be separated from subjective journalism and there should be clear markers to show what it is you're getting. I hate it when media organisations try to force-feed you a certain point of view and call it news; they have opinion pieces for this.

Fine dude, if you would rather write opinion pieces go right ahead; but please do the public the favor of marking them as such.


Narratives have an important place too, the passion of someone who believes in the subject strongly almost always makes for a more convincing and impactful piece, which in turn can bring much needed attention to an issue.


All I would ask is that you be up front and honest about your biases. If people want to use your material to build the walls of their echo chamber, than that's not your fault as long as you aren't feeding people lies or purposefully omitting important context.


Objective journalism is vital too though, to move the needle away from the short sighted extremism that defines our world more and more lately. But it's not the end all and be all of journalism either.


It is also still possible to write a piece which shows both sides of the issue fairly, and to have an agenda while avoiding the use of weasel words and emotionally manipulative language. It's not as easy, but if the antagonist in your story isn't dumb/evil enough to shoot them selves in the foot with their own quotable words, than as a good journalist you should be able to point out the inconsistencies in words VS actions to make your point instead.

While I don't agree that you should be sufjective to fight the system, I do like that you have finally admitted you are not objective. I think you should report both sides, but if you are not going to be objective, then be up front about it.

At risk of being dragged into an argument on the level of teenaged twitter fans, this is absolutely staggering amounts of bullshit. This guy has a chip on his shoulder the size of Nebraska and seems to want to make a living out of being a loud, shouty member of the various minority groups he so proudly embraces. For the record, I'm not proud of being blind, you can't be proud of things you didn't choose and it's a pain in the ass. I am proud of the fact that I've managed to make a decent life anyway, which I suspect is something the author of this stuff will never, ever achieve, because he's too busy wallowing in how special he is. But he isn't. It's easy to make your whole life about the disability. Getting beyond that is what takes grit.

True objectivity is impossible but everyone should at least try to be, whether in journalism or in day to day life. Nobody has to give equal voice to the powerful and the powerless just to make a point but you do have to describe the case for and against a point. If you fail to do that, if you just write shouty op ed the whole time, you might find you get a big band of idiotic droogs who are willing to sing your praises, and that might feel nice, but you will do it in the knowledge that you're not going to convince anyone with half a brain and the willingness to look at things from the opposing point of view, even if they agree with you in principle. By rejecting even the pretence of objectivity you're more or less openly admitting that you don't have a valid argument, which isn't convincing anyone.

It's hard to shake the impression that this sort of writing is just designed to get a reaction, a reaction just like the one I am writing right now, but I do really resent the fact that this guy, with his big mouth and is stupid opinions, risk influencing people's expectations of me because we both happen to be blind, which is really annoying. No shoulder chips here.

like yellow journalism?

Can someone please explain to me in simple terms the differences between objective and subjective? These are 2 concepts I have never been able to understand. Thank you.

I thought that the purpose of objective journalism was to report the facts without a bias, so as to not force-feed a certain narrative to the viewers.
For example, "Today the President of the US reported that Coronavirus Deaths were eliminated, whilst medical professionals cite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."
In this made-up example, it is indeed truthful because the article has cited a trustworthy medical professional who would in fact know the facts, let's say his name is Dr. Faust.
Is this not objective journalism?