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 does not hinder us at all from considering a brief adjective “objective”. This is our subject of study.
Value
If the reader allows, then we, of course, will start with the main thing - with the meaning, but not a short one, but a full adjective. The Explanatory Dictionary tells us that the definition of “objective” has the following meanings:
- Existing outside of us as an object is an objective world .
- Associated with external conditions, independent of one's will or desires - objective conditions, circumstances .
- The same as unbiased, impartial. If you redo the famous dictum about the Soviet court, then it turns 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 work. But what interests us here is not logic and reality, but only an example.
In fact, we will devote the conversation to the third meaning of the adjective today, the rest of the meanings are of little interest to us, because they are almost never used in everyday life. But first, as usual, the word replacement.
Synonyms
“Objective” - this word is in some way official, little used in colloquial speech, so the need for more “lively” adjectives will certainly arise. We offer you a list of synonyms. Let all those in need use:
- honest;
- unbiased;
- candid;
- equitable;
- independent;
- unprejudiced.
It is not difficult to notice that synonyms are full adjectives, not short ones. We will not hide that such a step was taken deliberately, so as not to sacrifice harmony. But if the reader needs short replacements, then he can mentally chop off the “unnecessary” parts with the above adjective and slightly modify them. The task is not difficult.
And we turn to the highlight of the program, the answer to the question: what is an objective person?
Impartiality is a reputation.
There are two points of view on the objectivity of the assessment: one says that we recognize as fair that which either coincides or is very close to ours, the second claims that the main criterion is independence.
The latter probably needs to be clarified. For example, no one will listen to the opinion about the head of the main sneak of the office, he is not objective, this is obvious. It is difficult to say what kind of relationship he has with the boss, but he really likes the leader. What to do, sometimes it happens. In such cases, it would be nice to listen to someone who does not depend on the boss, for example, a freelance employee who combines several jobs or works out of pure, unclouded 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 even more interesting. Is a person right because his opinion is authoritative or because it coincides with ours? Complex issue. And most importantly, he has no answer. Here the factor of consciousness of one who is listening to an opinion on a particular problem is already included.
In fact, in the information space it is impossible to be completely objective, because the reader or viewer always takes sides.
What determines the flow of material in the media?
In other words, one may ask this: is information objectivity possible in mass media? Yes, this is likely if it is not about politics, but about some purely specific figures. Let us take a conditional situation so as not to plunge into serious social problems. Imagine that someone Ivanov borrowed 5 pens from a friend, and then appropriated them to himself. And he answers categorically to all the pleas of a classmate: “These are my pens, and I will write with them!” Imagine that several newspapers took this material into development. Objective will be the one that, without a hitch, will talk about how it was.
But when it comes to politics, it is almost impossible to establish the truth, at least in Russia. Even if a newspaper is independent of the government, it is almost automatically considered opposition. When this does not happen, the self-censorship regime is activated: the fear of writing something wrong is too great. Here is the Soviet legacy, and the "cool 90s." Sad Not at all, because absolute freedom and objectivity does not exist in nature, there are always limitations.