Comments on: POLITICS: Incredulous Republican Fear of Debate

By: Joanna Sakievich

Joanna Sakievich — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:12:52 +0000

Couldn’t resist reading the debate points above: AMEN to you, Steve. The only was to achieve anything in this life is to think something and then decide whether or not to act on it. But first must come the thought. Thoughts which will please some and offend others are a part of the outcome. How the heck will we ever learn, do, or achieve anything if we can’t voice what we THINK? I grew up (I’m an ancient returning student @ BYU–just passed the 1/2 century mark) in a family of Lithuanian immigrants who voiced their opinions and consequently, I know how to think. I don’t profess to know much, but at least I possess the skill of reasoning things through. How can that be a bad thing? I am pursuing a degree in teaching because I feel that with all of our so-called progress, somewhere along the line we’ve gotten so so careful in trying not to offend we are afraid to express ourselves and that leads to the in-ability to even form a cohesive thought. Disagree with something someone’s expressed? Interject your own idea. Verbal bashing is not an idea. It’s a tantrum.

By: Joanna Sakievich

Joanna Sakievich — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:00:34 +0000

Hmmmm–I’m sure I should read all of the posted comments before adding my 2 bits, but Japanese studies await, so here goes: I don’t believe the issue here is whether or not to debate, but rather, a decision to stand on what’s already been debated and dismissed. The proposal was voted down. Moving on—

By: Steve Pierce

Steve Pierce — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:27:53 +0000

And really — if you want to put it in the basest, most cynical of terms — I guess that’s all it is. (But really, that also basically describes 90 percent of the Web sites out there, especially those focusing on opinion. After all, that is the idea: for writers to be able to share their ideas with an audience of interested individuals.) We’re not out to single-handedly change the world, just contribute our ideas to the conversation for the education and/or enjoyment of whoever feels like listening. We don’t take ourselves or our publication too seriously — we’re not making money off this. We aren’t professional journalists and we don’t claim to be. We just hope to add another series of voices and opinions to the conversation on any given issue, according to the dictates of our personal consciences. Maybe that makes us “small-time” because we aren’t engaging in tons of hard-nosed, investigative journalism, but we’re okay with that. We write what we feel strongly about, whether that be sports, politics, music, or whatever. We may not save the world and we may earn some enemies, but at least we’ll be able to say we were true to ourselves and our passions, beliefs and personal principles. And if that makes us just another glorified blog, well, I guess we’re in good company.

As always, thanks for reading.

By: Non-Partisan

Non-Partisan — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 06:00:59 +0000

You’re right, we shouldn’t strive for a country where compassion, understanding and a commitment to work together is fostered through… compassion, understanding and a commitment to work together. But now I’m just putting words in your mouth. You say Rhombus is just an outlet for your writers? Well, then what point is there to this little website? Do you have some sort of goal other than a glorified, multi-author blog? Because really, that’s all this seems to be.

By: Steve Pierce

Steve Pierce — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 04:40:29 +0000

I do think pursuing objectivity is a noble goal for certain publications, but I don’t necessarily think it’s possible to be 100% objective. If that’s going to be your calling card (as it is for traditional journalism), that’s a wonderful pursuit. But I think it’s naive to suggest that any outlet is completely devoid of bias. That’s not to say that the outlet isn’t striving for objectivity — the vast majority are. I understand this. But our biases are so real and so unavoidable that they can sneak into our reporting almost subconsciously. It may not be pronounced or intentional at all (I don’t think everyone is Fox News), but even the smallest things like how a reporter chooses to structure a story, what order he chooses to display his quotes, how he frames the issue, etc., can provide a slight bias, even despite his best intentions.

But many people in the industry refuse to even acknowledge these realities exist. It seems journalists have raised objectivity up on such an impossibly high pedestal that we feel any other form of journalism is lesser and not worthwhile — when in reality many other countries (and even our own), today and throughout history, have practiced a less-objective form of journalism and not spontaneously combusted. (The early days of our country? Present day England? Our sainted Muckrakers of the Progressive Era?) Don’t get me wrong — I’m all for objective journalism. I think it’s great and I respect the people that try to do it. But I also think it’s absolutely vital that we’re honest with ourselves and that we acknowledge its (and our) limitations.

By: McKay Coppins

McKay Coppins — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 03:47:48 +0000

“The restraints of the journalistic pursuit of some kind of quasi-objectivity?” Surely you’re not arguing, Steve, that journalistic objectivity is a pointless goal to pursue. Surely you’re not so cynical as to believe that no news outlet can realistically achieve anything more than “quasi-objectivity.” Surely you’re not trying to convince us that because life isn’t objective, neither should journalism be.

Life can be a lot of things that journalism shouldn’t be: unfair, boring, confusing, etc. I appreciate the merit of opinion-based journalism, but I think you should be careful not to discredit objective reporting in your defense of outlets like Rhombus.

By: Steve Pierce

Steve Pierce — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:48:17 +0000

Non-partisan,

I’m sorry to hear you’re disappointed with our political pieces. However, I will endeavor to remind you that Rhombus never has been and never will be concerned with objectivity. We are an opinion-driven publication that attempts to give our writers a place to share their thoughts and ideas, free of the restraints of the journalistic pursuit of some kind of quasi-objectivity. Randal (and every other writer at this publication) has but one job: to speak his mind in the best way he knows how. As a reader, you are more than welcome to disagree and (in your words) complain about perceived biases, but we embrace those biases and make no apologies for our content. It makes us who we are — life isn’t objective, and neither are we. Thanks so much for reading and I hope we can offer some opinions you find more palatable in the future.

Best,
Steve Pierce, Editor

By: Non-partisan

Non-partisan — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:57:21 +0000

Isn’t it lovely how “We the people,” has devolved into “they the Democrats” or “they the Republicans?” I find it just as interesting that your article, which is critical of the Republicans (rightfully so), does nothing to put into context what they said. Who were they speaking to? In what setting was it said? Or even who said it. You didn’t even attempt to hide your disdain for Republicans and utter support of Democrats. I really don’t even know why I read political pieces on Rhombus anymore. All you guys ever do is bash the other party. I might as well watch CNN of Fox News, but at least here I can complain about the terrible bias’ that are so prevalent. Has anyone in America stopped to try and encourage cooperation between parties without being a straight pessimist about it?