THE VIEW FROM NOWHERE PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Thomas Nagel | 256 pages | 27 Apr 1989 | Oxford University Press Inc | 9780195056440 | English | New York, United States The View from Nowhere by Thomas Nagel 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.