I changed my name as joke :P. I am gonna change it back when I get to, but I am imitating Pevergreen now. :P
I disagree with you there for two intertwined yet seperate reasons:
A: I believe not that the people at the NYT think they are being objective, but simply that they want readers to think that they are so more people will by their paper and so that they will have greater credibility. I think it is hypocracy that borders on dishonesty.
B: EVERYONE is biased, and every media outlet is biased. When when fools itself and tries to fool others into thinking that they are not, it is harder to take anything they say seriously when they are not upfront about where they are coming from. Think of it this way. A drug addict starts lobbying for legalised pot. Would you trust him more if you knew he was a drug addict and he denied it, or he was honest and said "Yeah, I am addicted to pot and I think it should be legalised because of..."
When someone is not honest about where they come from, you cannot trust them at all. It would be like me arguing for the right to carry and saying "I am completely unbiased, I do not own any guns". There is absolutely nothing wrong with bias, people's opinions are their biases and they should not lie about what they are.
EDIT: What you said about name change just made me think of something. Think of me comming onto a gun control thread with a new name and saying, "Well I am totally unbiased on this issue, but it looks to me like there is a better argument against gun control". It is dishonest to NOT admit your biases. They exist, and it does not make you dishonest to have them, it makes you dishonest to deny them.
Bookmarks