Is it objective? Is it like? What determines the objectivity of information?

Let's talk about objectivity today. Of course, the more a person learns, the less he believes in the existence of the latter. But this state of affairs will not prevent us from considering the short adjective "objective". This is our subject of study.

Value

If the reader allows, then, of course, we will begin withthe main one - from the meaning, but not the short, but the full adjective. The explanatory dictionary tells us that the definition of "objective" has the following meanings:

1. Existing outside of us as an object - objective world.
2. Associated with external conditions, not dependent on someone's will or desires - objective conditions, circumstances.
3. Same as unbiased, impartial. If we change the well-known dictum of the Soviet court, it will come out: Long live our court! The most objective and humane court in the world! Although if you consider the case of the famous trinity objectively, then no humanity will succeed. But we are not interested in logic and reality, but only an example.

In fact, it is the third valuewe will discuss the adjective today, the rest of the meaning is of little interest to us, because in everyday life they are hardly used. But first, as usual, the word-replacement.

Synonyms

"Objective" is a word in some wayofficial, inadequate in colloquial speech, so the need for more "living" adjectives will certainly arise. We offer you a list of synonyms. Let all needy use:

• fair;
• unbiased;
• candid;
• equitable;
• independent;
• unprejudiced.

It is not difficult to see that in synonyms completeadjectives, not brief. We can not conceal that such a step was made deliberately, so as not to sacrifice euphoniousness. But if the reader needs shortcuts, then he can mentally cut off all the "unnecessary" parts of the adjective above and slightly modify them. The task is not difficult.

And we turn to the nail of the program, the answer to the question: what is an objective person?

Non-bias is a reputation

There are two points of view on the objectivity of the evaluation: one says that we justly recognize the opinion that is either the same or very close to ours, the second argues that the main criterion is independence.

The latter, probably, needs an explanation. For example, no one will listen to the opinion of the chief of the main sycophant of the office, he is not objective, it is obvious. It's hard to say what kind of relationship he has with the boss, but he likes the leader. What to do, sometimes it happens. In such cases, it would be good to listen to someone who does not depend on the boss, for example, a freelancer who combines several works or a worker from pure, unadulterated enthusiasm. Yes, the reader is right, this is the ideal type. So what? But an employee of this format is objective, and this is also quite obvious.

Further more interesting. A person is right because his opinion is authoritative or because it coincides with ours? Difficult question. And most importantly, he has no answer. There is already included the factor of consciousness of the one who is listening to an opinion on this or that problem.

In fact, in the information space it is impossible to be completely objective, because the reader or the viewer always takes someone's side.

What determines the supply of material in the media?

In other words, you can ask this: Is information in the mass media objectively possible? Yes, it is likely, if we are not talking about politics, but about some purely specific figures. Let us take a conditional situation so as not to sink into serious social problems. Imagine that someone Ivanov took from his comrade 5 pens in debt, and then appropriated them himself. And all the pleas of the classmate answers categorically: "These are my hands, and I'll write them!" Let's imagine that several newspapers took this material into the development. Objective will be one that will tell you about the business without any discernment.

But if we are talking about politics, then establishthe truth is almost impossible, at least in Russia. Even if some newspaper is independent of the authorities, it is almost automatically considered to be oppositional. When this does not happen, the self-censorship regime turns on: the fear of writing something is not too great. Here is the Soviet legacy, and the "steep 90's". Sadly? Absolutely not, for absolute freedom and objectivity does not exist in nature, there are always limitations.