Gogo Jili slot,REGISTER NOW GET FREE 888 PESOS REWARDS!

By: Eli

Eli — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:56:36 +0000

Ah yes, description vs. explanation. I should break out the trusty Wayne Proudfoot. Anyway, I’m gearing up to write profiles of our lead plaintiffs – some rather marginalized people. I’d like to be their megaphone.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:41:40 +0000

But do you really think it would be ethical for you to continue the conversation offline? Wouldn’t that compromise your integrity? ??

When people question whether “objectivity” is a worthy goal, they often argue that it’s a vanishing horizon — we can’t get “objectivity,” so why try? I agree with this argument, but I think Courtney’s strategy is more salient: she points out ways in which, because all perspectives are already contingent on so many pre-existing factors, a voice that pretends to be ahistorical can actually be less truthful, less “objective,” than a collaborative voice. In other words, nice article.

By: Courtney Martin

Courtney Martin — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:47:07 +0000

Wow Nathan, thank you so much for this thoughtful response to my piece. I wish it could be published side by side with the original column, as it expands on so much of what I touched on, deepens it, and problematizes it in a way that I think is really important (so meta here, huh?).
I love this idea of journalism as an encounter. The danger of devolving into public relations is a big one, and that’s why I was really clear with my subjects–from the beginning–that I intended to write compassionately critical pieces of them. Sometimes that was easy–my subjects had a strong sense of self, and had even come up with the critiques I was making of themselves. Somethings it was thornier. One subject and I decided not to move forward on publishing her profile because we couldn’t find common ground.
Anyway, would love to continue the conversation on and off line. Thanks again.