ARE COLUMNISTS CAPABLE OF TOTAL OBJECTIVITY?

Columnists usually believe themselves to be objective and non-biased. Sometimes their denial is massive. Today, Stanley Fish in the NY Times wrote about his reasons for writing. I read and reread these particular few sentences: "When, for example, I wrote three columns criticizing the atheist tracts written by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, I was motivated not by a belief in God — which I may or may not have, you’ll never know — but by what I took to be sloppy, schoolboy reasoning that was passing itself off as wisdom. I could have been an atheist myself, and I still would have found the so-called logic of these books weak and risible."

Having read much from all three of these authors, I fail to see the 'so-called logic' as weak. Much of their 'logic is based on inconsistencies in the Bible that can be proven so by science as compared to that which writers on religion say must be taken on faith. There may or may not be a "God" (as in some power higher than man) but man was probably not created in his image and is not the God that has been described as omniscient and omnipotent, who hears all and sees all, a point on which few Atheists would disagree. Their arguments are usually aimed more towards religion as practiced and preached in churches, temples, mosques or elsewhere.

In reviewing many of the columns that appear on the Internet, I began to wonder what happens when they are written that differs when the columnists become guests on media panels and interviews where responses are not given time to be edited. I realized that those same columnists speak quite differently when they are allowed to express their biases in agreement with the host moderator. Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune is one such example. His columns are beautifully written in the manner of an excellent trained journalist, representing facts rather than opinion. He frequently appears on MSNBC with Chris Matthews (who is clearly anti-Hillary). It saddened me to watch Clarence Page being drawn into exposing himself as biased against Senator Clinton on that show. It wouldn't have been so offensive if he had been only biased FOR Obama. Matthews has often said that he can't understand why all 'black ethnics', mislabeling race as ethnic, wouldn't vote for Obama, one of their own kind. If that is a criteria Matthews thinks is sufficient to choose a president, I'm shocked! He dishonors not only Blacks, but his own race as well.

What makes it all worse is that the media execs are reported to be dictating positions to be taken by pundits on their channels. Apparently political loyalty and retaining jobs are more important than truth or what is best for the country. It is a clear position that is taken in the Administrative, Legislative Branch, Judicial Branch, and media. That lack of integrity has permeated our culture. Power begets power, When used to keep the less powerful in a helpless position through any means, life in the good old USA is no longer balanced