{TEXTBOOK} the View from Nowhere Kindle

For me, the best definitions of journalism encompass access AND process, and both are factors which differentiate journalism from other forms of writing and commentary. Thanks for clarifying the View From Nowhere. Viewpoint — Defense against bias charge vs. Acceptance of bias charge — Universal legitimacy vs. Niche legitimacy. Please elucidate: What is the preeminent View From Somewhere outlet doing that others should emulate? And what is it doing that others should avoid? Fox is not a good example of the view from somewhere, for several reasons. Ask the people who run Fox if it is a conservative take on the news and they will lie to your face and say no. Our news is objective, and in prime-time we have opinion shows, they will say. Right there they flunk the transparency test. Klein, a liberal, made it clear that he thought there needed to be a health care reform bill, and he talked openly about what he thought a good policy would be, as well as what a disaster to him it would be if the whole thing failed. He had also mastered his beat, and he covered the legislative battle in a newsy fashion without trying to pretend that he had no stake, preference or view of the health care reform universe. What made his coverage work was the combination of a journalist who knew a ton about the subject—Klein is a true wonk —and knew where he was coming from. Always glad to see someone giving Klein and especially Fallows a shoutout. He seems to be uprfront about his views and opinions; would you consider his show a good example of The View from Somehwere? And what objections would you make to his program? The face of the brand is a talker with a booming public voice, a thinking person who has convictions, and whose convictions are part of his news persona. He is wired for argument and controversy because he is willing to fight the spin of others with righteous spin of his own. And he has another advantage, for which he does not get enough notice. Thanks for your reply, Jay. I hope you will allow me to pick at this a bit, like an itchy scab. Seven years is a long time! So we are back to why Fox is not an example of News from Somewhere. There are only two possible answers: either your advice to move away from the News From Nowhere is addressed only to print journalism, because TV News is not capable of a true View From Somewhere; or something new is going on at Fox News that needs to be added to the equation. Inside Cable News asks:. Evelyn Messenger suggests:. Because it so often operates as a political organization rather than a journalistic one. Its frequent goal is the dissemination of tendentious partisan talking points rather than the enlightenment of viewers. They use it to tie Democrats to Obamacare or to make a point on government overreach or even to say it is the reason why businesses are not creating jobs. Here, Todd has a rooting interest in how the rhetorical battle on the campaign stump is waged — his interest is neither pro-Republican nor pro-Democrat but pro- voter. If legitimately committed to the View from Somewhere , having an ideology-describing page would be a badge of honor — and the fact that the broadcast networks did not have such a page would be all the more reason for Ailes to post one, not an excuse not to. On the contrary, he would agree that for such a journalist to claim to be producing non-ideological news would be, on its face, mendacious. My problem is with his too-frequent use of innuendo and insinuation. If you listen to his commentaries literally, his actual talking points often turn out to be mere suggestions or questions, not statements at all. Journalists are overwhelmingly liberal as many studies have documented and your only hope of beginning the regeneration of your badly damaged profession seems to me to be transparency. What Todd does is the equivalent of a sports anchor who tells you the scores. Every motive in Washington is reduced to how it affects the balance of power, and this attitude affects viewers by driving away their hope in or understanding of political progress. Todd never acknowledges whether the goals and practices of an individual or party are good or bad, hypocritical or courageous, constructive or harmful. It is absurd for journalists to deny that they have leanings to the left or the right or the center, or conservative or liberal or libertarian, or mainstream or progressive or fringe. But to say that journalists who admit they are liberal or conservative is the same as journalists who support the Democratic or Republican party is an insult to reporters who care about their objectivity. No one should have to assume so-and-so may have donated to such-and-such because he leans this way. Disclosure matters. The Post article linked to does not mention anything about estimating crowd size. The View from Nowhere: Questions and Answers "American journalism is dumber than most journalists, who often share my sense of absurdity about these practices. A major reason we have a practice less intelligent than its practitioners is the prestige that the View from Nowhere still claims He did the questions and the answers. Yeah, since … Q. So what do you mean by it? Well, does it? What does it say? So is objectivity a myth… or not? I let my disdain for it show. Your counsel would be to drop it, then? Jay Rosen says:. I modified the reference to Olbermann. Andrew Tyndall says:. Abe says:. On the broader question: Most journalists are trying to do honest work, and to do it fairly. Again: Most journalists are trying to do honest work, and to do it fairly. Inside Cable News says:. I suppose a secondary question would be is the above premise invalid? Karen Weintraub says:. Mark Austin says:. Tim says:. Clyde Smith says:. Great post, Jay. I thought I groked this, but you added several interesting dimensions. Wes Rolley says:. Taylor Wray says:. Bradley J. Fikes says:. I know. Jazzaloha says:. Bob Griendling says:. Alan Sunderland says:. Evelyn Messinger says:. Hunter says:. Freedom VIII. Value IX. Ethics X. Birth, Death, and the Meaning of Life. Its aims are intellectually ambitious, and their achievement involves the unqualified repudiation of cherished views held by many of Nagel's more or less eminent contemporaries He engages with precisely those philosophical doubts and anxieties that the reflective nonprofessional may be supposed to feel, and that are often inadequately dealt with by those whose professional business is philosophy. Strawson, The New Republic. All of his discussions are clear and insightful, but some reach a level of originality and illumination that opens genuinely new avenues of philosophical thought A rare combination of profundity and clarity, along with simplicity of expression. It should be recommended to all those who are bored with or despair about philosophy. Those who read it will be made to question many of their deepest beliefs, to consider new possibilities, and as a result to become more intellectually awake. Highly recommended. By Richard Payne In a previous post, we argued that the geo-political categories commonly employed in both popular and academic representations of Buddhism are problematic. The problems were grouped into rhetorical and lexical; the rhetorical consequences having been considered there, we now turn to the lexical. Specifically, the lexical distinction between mass nouns and count nouns clarifies how thinking about the subject of study logically and implicitly follow from ways of talking about that subject. Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Academic Skip to main content. He contends that if it were not true it would not be possible to hold any belief at all. This would entail a form of skepticism far more extreme than any variety of naturalism. The naturalist positions seems to take for granted that it is itself correct, and that therefore truth is possible at least in some areas. However, Nagel argues, the naturalist really has no right to this conviction; it is undercut by his own account of mind evolving through a random series of accidents. What then? At times Nagel seems to be preparing for a defense of theistic belief, but he never actually goes there. Indeed he even calls himself an atheist. Granted this is a very peculiar kind of atheism. We're used to the narrative of the believer forced to give up their faith due to the weight of scientific evidence or logical argument. Nagel is something like the opposite. His philosophy might actually have greater plausibility and coherence were he to posit the existence of God. Yet this he steadfastly refuses to do. He says there must be something that guarantees reason but will not say what that something is. He does not call it god and professes to know nothing about it. If others wish to make a full-blooded return to classical rationalism they cans do so; his remains a decidedly more watered down, agnostic version. View 2 comments. Shelves: philosophy. Thomas Nagel qualifies his sentences in a way that forces you to hold the subject in mind while waiting for the predicate. But that alone doesn't explain why my eyes glazed over trying to get through this book. I think I kept trying to hack away at it after I was already tired. What's more, what Nagel has to say is important and creative, and no other philosopher has said it. He talks about objectivity, a mode by which we come to know the world. What's really good is that he covers it from every Thomas Nagel qualifies his sentences in a way that forces you to hold the subject in mind while waiting for the predicate. What's really good is that he covers it from every angle -- ontology, epistemology, ethics and so on. Objectivity, Nagel finds, is not something learned in school and honed only with hard practice. It is inherent in human consciousness and part of our very being. Thought of that way, the idea of getting people to think objectively doesn't seem like asking them to do something alien to their nature; a person proud of his subjectivity and given to the impulse of the moment seems like an oddity, not the normal model of the human mind. An interesting point is that the subjective mind is part of the objective world, and has to be accounted for objectively. I've thought about that before myself, but never with the thoroughness Nagel brings to it. Another interesting point is that we all have both an objective self and a subjective identity. So when I say, "I am Tyler," this is not a trivial statement. The "I" has more than one sense to it. The ramifications of this are immense for Nagel, who shows us that the wonder of how I got to be this particular person out of the billions who live has greater philosophical importance than one might have imagined. The subject is quite interesting and Nagel's thinking is well structured. The book is accessible to anyone with a basic knowledge of philosophy. The harder stuff he goes over carefully, without escaping into the jargon of philosophy to get the point across. This book is referenced frequently by other authors, and it's a book I can recommend, too. View all 4 comments. Sep 12, Drenda rated it really liked it. The search for knowledge could be, and often is, described as the attempt to surpass the personal, subjective viewpoint by striving to encompass the largest number of conditions before arriving at a conclusion. It's the search for generalities after careful experimentation. It's the analytic style, the scientific method. Nagel, while totally respecting that this is at least the path toward truth, points out that starting point- the personal, subjective viewpoint. For him, while the subjective eg The search for knowledge could be, and often is, described as the attempt to surpass the personal, subjective viewpoint by striving to encompass the largest number of conditions before arriving at a conclusion. For him, while the subjective ego has a powerful drive to push beyond the boundaries of its own viewpoint, the objective stance can never look down and analyze the subjective away. The neuropsychologist who perfectly describes the functioning of every brain part and claims science has discredited any other description of the world has overlooked that it is not a viewpoint that he scalpeled through. For Nagel, the truly objective viewpoint must realize that the desire for ever widening inclusiveness must contain those subjectivities that initiated the move in the first place. Nagel does a fine job of defending against those scientists and philosophers who claim the scientific method provides the only description of our world. However, this is not what I found most interesting about 'The View from Nowhere'. The move from subjective to objective is a process that is necessitated in varying degrees in any human life. A conversation between two people means the realization of another subjectivity across the way and a viewpoint that takes that other into inconsideration. A drive toward all encompassing impartiality looks down on a world that realizes the huge number of viewpoints in it-and what about all those we educate ourselves to consider who lived in the past and those possibilities of the future? The view from the very abstract can make our own lives and ambitions, and those of every individual around us, seem petty indeed. Once taken, the step toward the view from nowhere dogs the path back to the personal, bringing differing degrees of alienation to everyday concerns. Nagel lists some of the paths out of the struggle between objective detachment and very human commitments. They are all temporary, partial or just dehumanizing for Nagel, since for him the conflict is an irresolvable aspect of being human, an almost noble aspect of our condition. The most stringent path is that of the hermit mystic: total withdrawal from personal and social concerns in order to concentrate on the universal. This eliminates the conflict by eliminating the subjective, thus becoming the dehumanizing extreme. Somewhat less so is the path of the saint, who minimizes the personal by putting all their efforts into providing for the basic needs of as many people as their efforts could possibly reach. There's the more livable method of putting it all behind you with the thought that we are human beings first and foremost and that the objective viewpoint is there simply to serve our interests. While we all use this most of the time, the point is that it does not alway work. Alienation from our own ambitions simply does creep back in and the argument from nowhere is not really refutable. A momentary respite from the conflict can be found in the aesthetic attitude: the non egocentric respect for the particular that can so absorb one that distinctions between points of view disappear. Think of encountering an item of great beauty. I also think of those who tried to make of this more than a momentary attitude, artists like Baudelaire. Since Nagel allows that all these efforts are partial at best, his favored response seems to lie with the acknowledgement that we should try to live our lives not totally out of line with our small objective value; in other words, we commit to our lives but with great humility. Nagel is the first to concede that many of our small pleasures are not 'necessarily canceled by the fact that they lack external justification". If so, perhaps we can take all the more joy from them while resting from the view from nowhere. Oct 08, Kyle van Oosterum rated it it was amazing Shelves: philosophy. We go on a journey through the philosophy of mind seeing that objective reductionism fails to capture the subjective qualia of a person, then move to how we gain knowledge, then to free will, to value and finally ethics and the disjunction between a life lived well and a life lived 'right'. In general, our capacity to engage in the objective standpoint tends to induce misunderstandings about the nature of consciousness, make free will appear impossible, impersonalise ethics excessively and make life feel just a bit meaningless. This is why we should not ever regard the subjective standpoint as useless as it contributes first-person accurate ontologies, softens the blow of deterministic ideas and is the subject of the ethical theories it proposes. Rather than view these two standpoints as two sides of a coin, we should see them as two simultaneously functioning together despite the tension between them. We can never abandon our own point of view of reality, we may only alter it, says Nagel. It is important to note that this book is quite difficult and somewhat unappealing at the start, but the conceptual power that Nagel harnesses makes it a worthwhile read for philosophers wanting a substantially reactionary book. Feb 11, VII rated it liked it. In What is it like to be a bat? Nagel argues that conscious animals possess a subjective point of view of things that is irreducible to physical properties. In a way it is just a continuation of the mind-body problem but it was made at a time when physicalism was almost universally accepted. The issue is still very relevant and I 'd say that it reformed as what we label now as the hard problem of consciousness. In this book Nagel argues that humans have developed another point of view besides the In What is it like to be a bat? In this book Nagel argues that humans have developed another point of view besides the subjective one. He says that we have an ability to see the world from a bird's eye view where our subjective point of view, our self, simply is a point of view among many. For Nagel, the human mind -and only the human mind-, somehow developed the ability to view the world objectively. Most of the book investigates familiar subjects like reality, freedom, value, ethics or even "the meaning of life" through this dichotomy. As an analytical philosopher, Nagel is really good at making his point. Assuming you accept his premises, his arguments are usually on point. He is ready to admit when he is not sure about something he writes and you can see that he is ready to write whatever he thinks is true despite how it will seem. There are a few paragraphs even on panpsychism for example. It's also good that he is concerned with the bigger picture instead of staying on some tiny irrelevant subject like many philosophers do. While I am sensitive to the irreducibility of consciousness, I just can't see how the objective self that Nagel describes is as objective as he thinks. It seems to me that it is simply a representation that is entirely dependent on the subjective one. Also, I know that my next statement is unfair but I can't help to think that Nagel's ultimate motive is to maintain the anthropocentric delusion that is typical of humans. This is much more apparent in his latest book, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False but even in this one his world has an objective meaning he -in a very modest way- questions the plausibility of the evolution of consciousness and he even believes in moral realism. All in all though, it's a pretty interesting book. I 'd argue that for someone who is smart and analytical but lacking in knowledge of the terminology and the history of philosophy, this is a decent introductory philosophy book, maybe a little on the hard side. He explains every idea he expresses while showing how you can talk about issues while staying in a very specific framework. This is much harder than it sounds. View 1 comment. Apr 08, Mr Siegal rated it really liked it. Objectively and Subjectively Intriguing Though at times superficial, this is an extraordinary book overall. Nagel is interested in the subjective and objective worldviews, the objective being the view from nowhere, and how these two viewpoints have different consequences for different areas of philosophy. The book is roughly split into four parts, the first dealing with philosophy of mind, the second dealing with metaphysics and the limits of thought the most interesting for me , the third with e Objectively and Subjectively Intriguing Though at times superficial, this is an extraordinary book overall. I must note that the book itself is not split as I say; it is just the impression I got from the relative chapters. Though the philosophy of mind and metaphysics parts of the book lend themselves as fertile ground for such a dichotomy to be discussed, the latter parts are somewhat lacking, chiefly because there is not enough analysis for why there is such a dichotomy: what gives rise to it etc. I get the feeling that Nagel takes this dichotomy as a given as do many people I believe , though I would have liked, and was indeed hoping, to see a bit more depth in regards to the metaphysical underpinnings of the dichotomy itself. I think if more emphasis were given to the why of the dichotomy, a much deeper work would have emerged. All in all, this in an exceptional book, and I believe has become somewhat of a modern classic. I can see why, and this book has for me cemented Nagel as an exceptional thinker I had not read his work previously — I was blind but now I see. May 21, Jack rated it really liked it. He covers a lot of ground. Some of his views sound convincing and reasonable, but you feel they sometimes lack more solid arguments. However the book is a wonderful exploration of the role of the objective and subjective points of view, the limits of the use of either perspective and how the importance placed on either one informs thinking in many areas. But no regrets in reading. Mar 18, Ryan rated it really liked it. Nagel wrote this book to address the tension between our subjective, personal view of the world, and the larger, objective view of the world that our thought opens out into. The subjective view is the 1st-person experience, fundamentally in reference to our selves, while the objective is or approaches the impersonal, global understanding of the world which only contains ourselves incidentally, as a part. The View from Nowhere - Wikipedia

Freedom VIII. Value IX. Ethics X. Birth, Death, and the Meaning of Life. Its aims are intellectually ambitious, and their achievement involves the unqualified repudiation of cherished views held by many of Nagel's more or less eminent contemporaries He engages with precisely those philosophical doubts and anxieties that the reflective nonprofessional may be supposed to feel, and that are often inadequately dealt with by those whose professional business is philosophy. Strawson, The New Republic. All of his discussions are clear and insightful, but some reach a level of originality and illumination that opens genuinely new avenues of philosophical thought A rare combination of profundity and clarity, along with simplicity of expression. It should be recommended to all those who are bored with or despair about philosophy. Those who read it will be made to question many of their deepest beliefs, to consider new possibilities, and as a result to become more intellectually awake. Highly recommended. By Richard Payne In a previous post, we argued that the geo-political categories commonly employed in both popular and academic representations of Buddhism are problematic. The problems were grouped into rhetorical and lexical; the rhetorical consequences having been considered there, we now turn to the lexical. Specifically, the lexical distinction between mass nouns and count nouns clarifies how thinking about the subject of study logically and implicitly follow from ways of talking about that subject. Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Academic Skip to main content. Search Start Search. Choose your country or region Close. Dear Customer, As a global organization, we, like many others, recognize the significant threat posed by the coronavirus. Please contact our Customer Service Team if you have any questions. To purchase, visit your preferred ebook provider. The View From Nowhere Thomas Nagel A lively look at humanity's divided viewpoint--both objective and subjective--and how these diferent views lead to a whole raft of philosophical problems. Strawson, The New Republic "Remarkable Also of Interest. The Last Word Thomas Nagel. This article is about the book by philosopher Thomas Nagel. For the term in journalism, see View from nowhere. Oxford University Press, Routledge, Jan 28, MIT Press. But when Thomas Nagel developed the beautiful philosophical vision of the View from Nowhere he was not selfless at all. If Nagel had ever truly viewed the world from nowhere , then he would not have had any autobiographical memory referring to this episode. Hidden categories: All stub articles. Namespaces Article Talk. The View From Nowhere - Thomas Nagel - Google книги

A great deal of progress can be made with a pluralistic solution. Ease up and let both systems operate— sometimes within the same news organization. Let some in the press continue on with the mask of impartiality, which has advantages for cultivating sources and soothing advertisers. Let others experiment with transparency as the basis for trust. The paraphrases here are incompetent. For the sake of your argument, you minimize the seriousness of the criticisms against Keith Olbermann and Juan Williams. Yet whatever it was, he was not fired for the reason you give. The NPR policy does in fact prohibit news analysts from giving their personal views or taking positions on controversial matters, which in my view would be most of the matters they have to discuss on air. Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions. You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the president of NBC News or his designee. My distinction in the NPR case between professional analysis and personal opinion still stands. One ought to be able to make an argument without distorting the positions one is arguing against. Most journalists are trying to do honest work, and to do it fairly. Keith Olbermann is no journalist. But even for him, giving money to someone you had on the show that night ought to be clearly out of bounds. Andrew called them incompetent paraphrases. I called them distortions. Not dissimilar to the distortion that Olbermann himself made when he said, oh, I had never been informed of this policy. Of course, Olbermann would never have received permission to donate to candidates, much less candidates who appear on his show — the real offense, of course, was the donation, not the failure to gain permission. Everyone knows this, no? You say Olbermann was suspended for donating to candidates he supports. The most neutral possible rendering of the offense. An incompetent paraphrase or a distortion? What he was suspended for was embarrassing himself and his news organization for giving money to someone he was interviewing or that evening, had interviewed. Everyone sees this, no? Jay, you like to respond only to the part you feel comfortable responding to. I really wish we could stick to the facts here and not the conventional wisdom which has supplanted said facts. Olbermann was not suspended for donating to candidates he supports. What the actual suspension was for depends on whether you believe MSNBC statements that it was for not following established NBC policy about getting clearance for making donations or the rumors that he was suspended for not wanting to go on the air and issue a mea culpa. The distinction is technical but very significant. Being suspended for giving campaign contributions invokes a plethora of different responses and reactions than being suspended for either not following established procedure or insubordination does. The former makes Olbermann into a martyr. The latter two make him either uninformed or a loose canon. I too have no problem with Olbermann giving contributions nor do I have any problem with any journalist making contributions as long as they are disclosed in some manner. But I seem to be late to the party since you did apparently change the text around. I should have kept on reading the thread instead of hitting reply. For that I apologize. Thank you. When alerted that my phrasing may be inaccurate, I change it until it is accurate. I see no flaws in your argument. But what I would wonder is how you differentiate between attempts at TVFN and attempts at basic objectivity and fairness? And how are we to recognize the difference? But are they really? Or, are they aiming for objectivity but sometimes missing the mark? This question is complicated by the fact that in cable news what a news operation does is not always reflected in the way the network promotes itself. Not taking a side could also be interpreted as a ham handed way of describing attempts at objectivity. This is why I ask the question, how do we differentiate between the two? More importantly, how do THEY differentiate between the two? CNN leaves it there:. Ambinder, after five years as a blogger for the Atlantic, has decided to go back to more conventional reporting — the View from Nowhere. In other words, are individual journalists putting their careers and their credibility at risk when they transition between these two points of view? Can journalists be nowhere and somewhere at the same time? Good question. That requires a lot more thought. That was an illuminating post,Jay. But in reality they regard these complaints as a completely ritualized, and the apparent symmetry in the criticism seems to them a kind of backhanded compliment, proving that they steer things straight down the middle. Since they anticipate getting hit from both sides like this, they need something to say back. The View from Nowhere provides it. OK, I get you now. The reporter? But I think a pluralistic approach might work well. At times, in those discussions, I felt like there was such a rejection of certain research modes that we cut ourselves off from richer possibilities for research. But I also think there has to be an education process for the readers. On a side note, I also found that when you discussed historical issues with students and revealed that the party line, so to speak, lacked the nuance of what the historical record revealed, they were often more likely to question my competence than to recognize the constructed and sometimes tenuous nature of serious research. Kind of sad but also indicative of the additional education required when presenting such approaches to readers, whether editors or the general public! It can be quite tricky. At worst, I might shy away altogether, especially if I happen to start with something he writes with which I vehemently disagree. It ignores the media consumer, some of whom have more knowledge of some subjects than the media presenter has. As a consumer of media, of journalism, I expect that there are always at least 3 versions of every story. The one most often left out is the factual. There are a very few working journalists today whose words I trust to present the facts, as well as the he said, she said partisanship. This is most apparent to me when the subject is ecological in nature: climate, water, agriculture. In California, most of the major media presenters have lost the reporters who really understand the ramifications of water. That expertise which takes a long time to develop is no longer there. Staff reductions have taken care of some. The lucrative attraction from big money water wholesalers have hired many of the rest. The few that are left often have to cover other things. As a consumer of journalism, I have to look far and wide to find the expertise. It is still there, often with a blog, but almost never reaching the general public with the facts. Great post, Jay! I think the rise of cable TV and Internet has created a much freer market, in terms of media, so now consumers are using that freedom to demonstrate that they prefer genuine perspective in their reporting, rather than he-said, she-said false equivalencies. The problem is, how much perspective do you allow into your reporting? FOX reporters tend to editorialize A LOT, often at the cost of accuracy and credibility, whereas CNN will refrain from coming to even obvious editorial conclusions if they appear to favor one side or the other. It definitely caters to my progressive sympathies in terms of the news it chooses to break, but the stories tend to be fact-based and well-researched. BTW, I also think Olbermann did nothing wrong. Just by openly proclaiming his views, Olbermann was active in politics, with the blessings of his bosses — indeed it was his job description. Giving money is simply an extension of his activism. I agree with your conclusion on Weigel. The deception and betrayal are important factors. The one place I see this type of journalism is in The Economist. This is also a way to add value to the product for subscibers. Journalists do operate under constraints that limit the quantity and quality of the work completed for specific products. Sometimes they cut corners and cheat. Show your work may also help expose and reduce journalism scandals. I think the problem is what you describe. Detail is often cut and replaced by useless quotes. I may be being generous here, but I think the real culprits are corporate accountants. But good luck with that. On your point about fake balance substituting for more expensive acts of reporting that thinned out newsrooms cannot undertake…. So the AP adds reactions from organized groups that are primed to react. But I would be willing to pay more for news that was more thorough, etc. I just hope there a lot of us out there to make this type of news economically viable. This is a really interesting piece of analysis, but I still think there is a crucial and vital piece missing at the heart of it. I think you are just side- stepping the only interesting question in the whole debate, which is how you synthesise the two. Transparency is NOT the new objectivity, it is potentially a vital tool in contextualising the process of objectivity, but I remain convinced the process is a valid one. For me, the best definitions of journalism encompass access AND process, and both are factors which differentiate journalism from other forms of writing and commentary. Thanks for clarifying the View From Nowhere. Viewpoint — Defense against bias charge vs. Acceptance of bias charge — Universal legitimacy vs. Niche legitimacy. Please elucidate: What is the preeminent View From Somewhere outlet doing that others should emulate? And what is it doing that others should avoid? Fox is not a good example of the view from somewhere, for several reasons. Ask the people who run Fox if it is a conservative take on the news and they will lie to your face and say no. Our news is objective, and in prime-time we have opinion shows, they will say. Right there they flunk the transparency test. Klein, a liberal, made it clear that he thought there needed to be a health care reform bill, and he talked openly about what he thought a good policy would be, as well as what a disaster to him it would be if the whole thing failed. Epistemological Theories, Misc in Epistemology. Subjectivity and Consciousness in Philosophy of Mind. Edit this record. Mark as duplicate. Find it on Scholar. Request removal from index. Revision history. Download options PhilArchive copy. Configure custom resolver. Chapters BETA. Fredom and the View From Nowhere. Frank Jackson - - Oxford University Press. Jonas Olson - - Oxford University Press. Sharon Street - - Philosophical Studies 1 On a Confusion About a Function of Consciousness. Ned Block - - Brain and Behavioral Sciences 18 2 — Daniel Stoljar - - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Bat or Batman? David Pugmire - - Philosophy 64 April Matthew Ratcliffe - - Continental Philosophy Review 35 4 Marilyn Friedman - - Philosophy 65 Alan Thomas - - Routledge. Charles Taliaferro - - Southern Journal of Philosophy 26 3 Larry D. Harwood - - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 4 3 Norman Malcolm - - Philosophy 63 April Experiential Objectivity. Oxford University Press. Virtue Epistemology and Moral Luck. Mark Silcox - - Journal of Moral Philosophy 3 2 Skepticism About the External World. Subjective and Objective. Thomas Nagel - - In Mortal Questions. Cambridge University Press. Physicalism and Subjectivity.

The View from Nowhere: Questions and Answers - PressThink

Those who read it will be made to question many of their deepest beliefs, to consider new possibilities, and as a result to become more intellectually awake. Highly recommended. By Richard Payne In a previous post, we argued that the geo-political categories commonly employed in both popular and academic representations of Buddhism are problematic. The problems were grouped into rhetorical and lexical; the rhetorical consequences having been considered there, we now turn to the lexical. Specifically, the lexical distinction between mass nouns and count nouns clarifies how thinking about the subject of study logically and implicitly follow from ways of talking about that subject. Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Academic Skip to main content. Search Start Search. Choose your country or region Close. Dear Customer, As a global organization, we, like many others, recognize the significant threat posed by the coronavirus. Please contact our Customer Service Team if you have any questions. To purchase, visit your preferred ebook provider. The View From Nowhere Thomas Nagel A lively look at humanity's divided viewpoint--both objective and subjective--and how these diferent views lead to a whole raft of philosophical problems. Strawson, The New Republic "Remarkable Also of Interest. The Last Word Thomas Nagel. Fixing Reference Imogen Dickie. Staff reductions have taken care of some. The lucrative attraction from big money water wholesalers have hired many of the rest. The few that are left often have to cover other things. As a consumer of journalism, I have to look far and wide to find the expertise. It is still there, often with a blog, but almost never reaching the general public with the facts. Great post, Jay! I think the rise of cable TV and Internet has created a much freer market, in terms of media, so now consumers are using that freedom to demonstrate that they prefer genuine perspective in their reporting, rather than he-said, she-said false equivalencies. The problem is, how much perspective do you allow into your reporting? FOX reporters tend to editorialize A LOT, often at the cost of accuracy and credibility, whereas CNN will refrain from coming to even obvious editorial conclusions if they appear to favor one side or the other. It definitely caters to my progressive sympathies in terms of the news it chooses to break, but the stories tend to be fact-based and well-researched. BTW, I also think Olbermann did nothing wrong. Just by openly proclaiming his views, Olbermann was active in politics, with the blessings of his bosses — indeed it was his job description. Giving money is simply an extension of his activism. I agree with your conclusion on Weigel. The deception and betrayal are important factors. The one place I see this type of journalism is in The Economist. This is also a way to add value to the product for subscibers. Journalists do operate under constraints that limit the quantity and quality of the work completed for specific products. Sometimes they cut corners and cheat. Show your work may also help expose and reduce journalism scandals. I think the problem is what you describe. Detail is often cut and replaced by useless quotes. I may be being generous here, but I think the real culprits are corporate accountants. But good luck with that. On your point about fake balance substituting for more expensive acts of reporting that thinned out newsrooms cannot undertake…. So the AP adds reactions from organized groups that are primed to react. But I would be willing to pay more for news that was more thorough, etc. I just hope there a lot of us out there to make this type of news economically viable. This is a really interesting piece of analysis, but I still think there is a crucial and vital piece missing at the heart of it. I think you are just side-stepping the only interesting question in the whole debate, which is how you synthesise the two. Transparency is NOT the new objectivity, it is potentially a vital tool in contextualising the process of objectivity, but I remain convinced the process is a valid one. For me, the best definitions of journalism encompass access AND process, and both are factors which differentiate journalism from other forms of writing and commentary. Thanks for clarifying the View From Nowhere. Viewpoint — Defense against bias charge vs. Acceptance of bias charge — Universal legitimacy vs. Niche legitimacy. Please elucidate: What is the preeminent View From Somewhere outlet doing that others should emulate? And what is it doing that others should avoid? Fox is not a good example of the view from somewhere, for several reasons. Ask the people who run Fox if it is a conservative take on the news and they will lie to your face and say no. Our news is objective, and in prime-time we have opinion shows, they will say. Right there they flunk the transparency test. Klein, a liberal, made it clear that he thought there needed to be a health care reform bill, and he talked openly about what he thought a good policy would be, as well as what a disaster to him it would be if the whole thing failed. He had also mastered his beat, and he covered the legislative battle in a newsy fashion without trying to pretend that he had no stake, preference or view of the health care reform universe. What made his coverage work was the combination of a journalist who knew a ton about the subject— Klein is a true wonk—and knew where he was coming from. Always glad to see someone giving Klein and especially Fallows a shoutout. He seems to be uprfront about his views and opinions; would you consider his show a good example of The View from Somehwere? And what objections would you make to his program? The face of the brand is a talker with a booming public voice, a thinking person who has convictions, and whose convictions are part of his news persona. He is wired for argument and controversy because he is willing to fight the spin of others with righteous spin of his own. And he has another advantage, for which he does not get enough notice. Thanks for your reply, Jay. I hope you will allow me to pick at this a bit, like an itchy scab. Seven years is a long time! So we are back to why Fox is not an example of News from Somewhere. There are only two possible answers: either your advice to move away from the News From Nowhere is addressed only to print journalism, because TV News is not capable of a true View From Somewhere; or something new is going on at Fox News that needs to be added to the equation. Inside Cable News asks:. Evelyn Messenger suggests:. Because it so often operates as a political organization rather than a journalistic one. Its frequent goal is the dissemination of tendentious partisan talking points rather than the enlightenment of viewers. They use it to tie Democrats to Obamacare or to make a point on government overreach or even to say it is the reason why businesses are not creating jobs. Here, Todd has a rooting interest in how the rhetorical battle on the campaign stump is waged — his interest is neither pro-Republican nor pro-Democrat but pro- voter. If legitimately committed to the View from Somewhere , having an ideology-describing page would be a badge of honor — and the fact that the broadcast networks did not have such a page would be all the more reason for Ailes to post one, not an excuse not to. On the contrary, he would agree that for such a journalist to claim to be producing non-ideological news would be, on its face, mendacious. My problem is with his too-frequent use of innuendo and insinuation. If you listen to his commentaries literally, his actual talking points often turn out to be mere suggestions or questions, not statements at all. Journalists are overwhelmingly liberal as many studies have documented and your only hope of beginning the regeneration of your badly damaged profession seems to me to be transparency. What Todd does is the equivalent of a sports anchor who tells you the scores. Every motive in Washington is reduced to how it affects the balance of power, and this attitude affects viewers by driving away their hope in or understanding of political progress. Todd never acknowledges whether the goals and practices of an individual or party are good or bad, hypocritical or courageous, constructive or harmful. It is absurd for journalists to deny that they have leanings to the left or the right or the center, or conservative or liberal or libertarian, or mainstream or progressive or fringe. But to say that journalists who admit they are liberal or conservative is the same as journalists who support the Democratic or Republican party is an insult to reporters who care about their objectivity. No one should have to assume so-and-so may have donated to such-and-such because he leans this way. Disclosure matters. The Post article linked to does not mention anything about estimating crowd size. The View from Nowhere: Questions and Answers "American journalism is dumber than most journalists, who often share my sense of absurdity about these practices. A major reason we have a practice less intelligent than its practitioners is the prestige that the View from Nowhere still claims He did the questions and the answers. At the same time, each of us is a particular person in a particular place, each with his own "personal" view of the world, a view that we can recognize as just one aspect of the whole. How do we reconcile these two standpoints--intellectually, morally, and practically? To what extent are they irreconcilable and to what extent can they be integrated? Thomas Nagel's ambitious and lively book tackles this fundamental issue, arguing that our divided nature is the root of a whole range of philosophical problems, touching, as it does, every aspect of human life.

https://files8.webydo.com/9592628/UploadedFiles/13581A1E-66FE-6FE1-C1BD-CA64FB5686D1.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9587237/UploadedFiles/2FF1E126-7546-0BEC-8673-F5CE1D2AEDDB.pdf https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/dd0212ee-3006-49c8-a90a-888db4125c0f/tsuru-no-ongaeshi-22.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9588618/UploadedFiles/E70F1831-5A8E-5707-8327-918784FE0908.pdf https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/4631f769-bb3d-48b4-87da-29343fcaac70/die-dunkle-zukunft-397.pdf https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4640506/normal_602083a47d933.pdf