But in this case, it is. Address the argument instead of dodging.

Polygon's "crime" (loaded language much? strawman for sure... no one is saying they are doing nything illegal)... their "crime" is neither going too far or too close, it's going where they have gone while misrepresenting themselves. It does not matter where they go, as long they "disclaim" it.

Why? Just because you can create an example which says so, do not mean it is universally true (I did not even read it, to be honest, because it is pointless...). There is no point dealing with analogues when the point is as clear as it is without them. Three things have come out of this:

1 - The ethics thingy you linked do not mention anything about representing all sides
2 - Providing context is not the same as representing all sides
3 - It is therefore not unethical to not represent all sides, what is unethical is for example fabrication.

Is this not correct?

Please don't tell me what I can or not claim. That's begging the question, or trying to close discussion by stating "I win".

As long as I am internally consistent I can claim logically whatever I want, especially if you are not interested in deepdiving into the ethical reasoning behind our differences. If my value system is such that I find x to be unethical, then x is unethical to me. That's my claim.

For you to say I can't claim it, as if you are objectively right and me wrong, is hypocrysy of the highest order. :)

Look Amok, I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me over ethics even. But so what now?

You think rejecting objectivity is for the best, I think objectivity is for the best. Ergo I think the journalists rejecting objectivity are being unethical, you are neutral or even think they are doing something ethical.

Let's deepdive. I've been honest throughout and very open. I suspect your political ideas bias you towards a conception of justice that reduces individual freedom more than I find correct. Instead of claiming you don't intend to reduce individual freedom (to hate, to offend, to be an imperfect human basically - but I draw the line at physical actions, at violence, at coercion), or claiming you do not have your own subjective political preferences... why not be open and honest, and let's explore deep ethical differences and understand each other better.

1.The review condemns a guy for being a misogynist for beating his wife

2.The reviewer does not provide the context of the situation, yet labels the male character in question a misogynist, and doesn't mention Geralt gets a say in the matter either

3.Hence, what is happening here is obvious and probably intentional misinterpretation; which IS mentioned DIRECTLY in the quote I cited earlier.

4.Either way the POV offered was not unbiased, fair or complete.

EDIT : +1 to Brasas for good post

well... it is more that I think objectivity does no exist... so invoking it in any form is... well... just rhetoric.

which would be very interesting, because I am gyrating towards nothing but personal freedom based on ethics and honor... I think the ethos of, for example, the high standards for self imposed (and non-existing) concepts such as objectivity is reducing personal freedom in some ways. Journalist should in all forms strive to be ethical and honorable towards their subjects and readers, if we can manage that then I would be very, very happy.

i am not going to read any examples. Do you agree with my three points or not? if not, what do you disagree with and why?

You are getting to similar conclusions as me, yet your premises seem to me wrong. I find that curious so let me ask something.

The unethical methodology of not being objective (eg fair, etc...) is orthogonal to what the writing is saying.

-You can have ethical journalism showcasing sexism (your examples seem to focus on sexism, so I'm following your lead).
-You can have unethical journalism showcasing sexism.
-You can have both ethical and unethical sexism showcasing reverse-sexism (so to speak).

Now what I think both of us agree is that when we say ethical journalism, we don't just mean it showcases something that is true. In fact one can imagine situations where the ethical journalism reaches untrue conclusions.

So if like Warehall, you equate objectivity strongly with truth, then I can see why you say there is a clear difference. Afterall acting ethically is no guarantee of true outcomes, of proper outcomes, or of good outcomes even. But I see objectivity as somewhat broader, and guided by an ethical intent, rather than a guarantor of ethical outcomes. In that sense, if you are objective, you are ethical, end of story.

Hmmm... actually maybe you meant something else entirely, about professional ethics versus broader ethics. Still I'm rambling, hope you see what I'm curious about though.

I think we need to go a bit into meta level... not sure if I should be happy about that or not.

What do you mean when you say something exists? Objectivity, like perfection, is a concept. It's not a physical object obviously. In one sense then, you are obviously correct when you say an abstraction does not exist. And yet, here we are talking about it. Are you saying we're both crazy? :)

I can be a bit snarky and start pushing on buttons Amok. How about Love, is that an abstraction? How about Justice? The Right to Life? Abstractions only? Conscience? Agency? Freedom? Is it all an illusion mate?

Anyway. You certainly hit on a deep truth there. Any ethos imposes, that's its point even. That's why ethos is very near to authority. An author creates, deriving his power from that transforming action. Whereas an ethos derives its power from a more democratic selection let's say. Both provide authority, both should be recognized equally imo.

Still as you rightly suggest, this imposition is only a problem when instead of self-imposition it extneds coercively over others. For example when someone tries to impose that others can't hate, despite it being a perfectly (hehe pun intended) normal human feeling.

it do not exist in terms of yes, it is a concept, but it is a created concept. And self imposed and branded as an ideal. Objectivity is not something inherent in a human being, it is not even something we would like to strive for unless someone tells us to do so. In fact - objectivity is grey, lifeless and boring and take away human responsibility. Not sure why we even want to strive for it?

I would argue that all of these are something we are born with or have some inherent ability to strive for. Objectivity is neither. You can off course push this further to include political ideals, and so on, but then is is a matter of personal conviction. Maybe objectivity belongs here? Still, then it should not be something you should push on anyone (and in any case it is un-achievable, like perfect democracy or communism).

Ok, thanks.

I left in quote an excellent point you're making, which I think we all agree, yet are constantly suspected of not meaning it.

As to the tragedy of trying to do the right thing in the right way and it blowing up in your face, I'd have to think of farfetched examples right now. Probably they would involve being manipulated by a source for example. Manufactured evidence, stuff like that.

Hmmm... can you elaborate on the distinction between created concepts and inherent concepts?
- you consider objectivity and political ideals as somehow artificially imposed.
- you consider love, justice, freedom inherent abilities everyone is born with.
The problem I see is that it's not some external power imposing any of those concepts on its fellow humans, it's just more humans... or put another way, it's all inherent and evolved, or so it seems to me. Are you going to get religious on me and speak of original sin, or maybe of corrupting powers? That would surprise me... :)

Then, going with your distinction, I still have one question. Why do you see inherent as better than created? I can imagine many people that would reverse the valuation... humanity freeing itself from the bonds of nature through creativity and ingenuity, the power of Reason and all that jazz...

Lastly, going back to the start, because we've circled around it for a while. Why do you consider objectivity to be boring, grey and lifeless? I come from the hard sciences background mate, and I never understood the point of view that explaining what stars are takes away their beauty. I can appreciate a starry night just as well with or without knowing about solar fusion and cosmology.

And actually, because I can kind of see your meaning. How about this counterpoint: That's precisely the point. For certain human activities, the passion, emotion and suspense are counterproductive. Better outcomes will be achieved with an approach that recognizes that from the start. For example, do you want legal proceedings to be driven by emotion or by reason? :)

We're pretty close to incarnating the stereotypes of heart vs mind huh? The thing is, emotion always had its place in literature, whereas journalism was something else. You guys are trying to transform journalism, and what you're actually doing by making it so vibrant, passionate and full of nice intentions is you're killing it.

It is a bit like basic human needs. It is something we are born with, and strive for. We all have the capability for love, we all prefer freedom (to certain degree...), everyone feel a need for justice (though what justice means is something else).

Then there are the 'artificial' or 'created' concepts, democracy, fascism, beauty and so on. Being objective is one of them - as you self have said, subjectivity is inherent, not objectivity.

All 'created' concepts are created out of an agenda. And while they are possibly beneficial, they can also be inhibiting. I think 'objectivity' is one of the inhibiting one, especially in the arts and creative sectors. Objectivity is in many ways the opposite of creativity.

To get one thing out of the way first - I am also an chemist :)

And in maths and hard science, there is a room for so called 'objectivity' as there is much more need for common grounds. This is in relation that 2+2 is objectively always 4. But, as seen from the DNA experiment, when we move away from the very basic building blocks - subjectivity kicks in. And then there are two ways of dealing with it. (a) pretending 'hard science' have no subjectivity or (b) work with the inherent subjective nature of human beings. You talk about cosmology? there is quite a lot of opposing theories in that field, everyone 'hides' behind being objective. But yes, there is more room for objectivity in 'hard science' to make it work. In the 'soft' there are not.

Speaking of grey? I ask again - what would an truly objective review of Hatred (or any game) actually look like?

No, but then subjectivity do not mean to be driven by emotions. Law should be adaptable to work on a case to case basis, s each case is different and have different circumstances. Being objective actually removes some o this element. But you can be subjective and logical.

Journalism have always been emotional, vibrant and passionate, at least the good journalist have always been....

WUT? I don't think anyone reading that review thought that the mother and child didn't ALSO get to put their side or that sympathizing with the wife beater was only one of 2 or 3 dialog options - I've not played the game and it was clear to me that Mr Gies was offended that the wife beater got to speak AT ALL and that he was shocking that sympathizing with the wife beater was an option AT ALL, no matter how many other options there were...

And yeah, I often try not to get bogged down in arguing about minutia when there's a bigger picture that's more important - Seeing the woods for the trees and all that...

Some more quotes regarding the responsibility of journalists...
– Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work.
– Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.
– Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
– Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information.

Valid representation of opposing viewpoints falls under context. It falls under accuracy. It helps avoid misrepresentation. It seems you just want to argue to argue. The fact you are trying to justify one-sided stories, articles, or reviews because there is no specific bulletpoint saying the obvious that a reporter is expected to report the truth is rather silly.

Worse, we've given specific examples where this reviewer is playing word games for his claims. Calling the game misogynistic for daring to have a bigoted NPC state his bigoted viewpoint. He essentially made the claims that the game designers included this viewpoint because they agree with it. Yet, the context of the story says otherwise.

You seem to miss the point that journalism is supposed to be fair and accurate...that is very hard to do if one is presenting only one side of an issue. In fact it is impossible, because if there was not another side, there wouldn't be an issue...
So you are implying that a "good" developer should make all the game choices for you, or only allow a small set of options which are consistent with "social justice"? Tell me how including that option makes the game bad?