单选题 Few journalists or journalism scholars today would hazard calling upon the principle or ideal of objectivity. On the contrary, the majority rejects or denounces the concept in almost total unanimity. Aside from the fact that was shown in my article of 1991, the arguments against it do not {{U}}hold water{{/U}}. Be they epistemological, ontological, psychological, pragmatic, or ethical, one of the most puzzling aspects of this rejection of objectivity in journalism is that it seems to be taken both as an established fact and as a matter still requiring careful, if not to say obsessive, attention. If objectivity is really a myth and if it has been clearly demonstrated as such, why do scholars not move on rather than continue to cry out against the notion as if it still presented some danger despite its non-existence? Of late, the general attitude towards objectivity bears similarities to the attitude of those who denounce religion with a zeal that is essentially religious in nature. Another defining trait of modern criticism of objectivity is its lack of intellectual rigor. Much of the time, the notion is criticized but not defined. The idea that is rejected is not a clear, easily identified notion, but rather a vague intuition: the object under attack never precisely defined. Certainly, objectivity has different meanings according to differences of time or place, but this is all the more reason for those who wish to reject the notion to give at least a minimal definition of it. Without a definition, criticism of objectivity in journalism is characterized at best by slovenly intellectual practices, at worst by total lack of method.
In the present paper, I confront the cliché that objectivity in journalism is useless, illusory, or artificial. My ultimate goal is to defend this much beleaguered concept, for I hold that the end of objectivity in journalism would spell the end of journalism itself. This paper explicitly advocates maintaining objectivity in journalism, but its defence must necessarily be based on a clear and precise definition of the concept. In other words, to defend objectivity in journalism, I believe it is necessary to provide what is lacking in the arguments of its detractors: a satisfactory definition.
In working towards this definition, nay first step is to attempt to identify the aspects of journalism involving objectivity. One of the greatest problems in any discussion of objectivity in journalism is the ambiguous and elastic nature of the concept. Rarely do we bother to identify the aspects or elements of reporting to which the concept of objectivity can be applied. In other words, there is considerable confusion as to what, in journalism, is supposed to be objective. Inspired by the notion of "central range of application" used by John Rawls (1971) to describe the applicability of his principles of justice, I have adopted the term "area of application" to designate the areas in which a concept may be used. In short, the goal of the present article is to identify the area of application of objectivity in journalism.
My approach is essentially negative: first, in a series of propositions, I shall identify those aspects of journalism to which matters of objectivity cannot apply. This should enable me to define the area of application of objectivity in journalism accurately enough to establish a minimal definition of the concept itself. This indirect approach also offers the advantage of bringing out the different ways in which the notion of objectivity is used, clearly demonstrating that certain criticisms and attacks are inappropriate because they are, in fact, misapplied. Analyzing objectivity in relation to an area to which it cannot be applied is a logical error. I shall call this type of error a "category mistake," a concept I encountered in the writings of Gilbert Ryle (1951). In my opinion, much scholarly writing criticizing objectivity in journalism is completely invalidated by the fact that it is based on a category mistake: it is based on the application of the concept of objectivity to an inappropriate aspect of reporting.
Some of the propositions I put forward here concerning the area of application of objectivity in journalism may seem banal or even self-evident. However, they must be established in order to carry out a methodical and comprehensive analysis.

单选题 Where is this passage most likely to appear?

A. Editorial.
B. Textbook on journalism.
C. Research paper.
D. Letter to the editor.

单选题 What does "hold water" in Paragraph 1 mean?

A. Resist water.
B. Wrong statement.
C. Treat water.
D. Stand to reason.

单选题 What seems puzzling about the rejecting of objectivity according to the author?

A. Many scholars continue arguing against it while saying it does not exist in journalism.
B. Most journalists reject the notion of objectivity in journalism.
C. Scholars talk about it in too many approaches that the author is confused.
D. Scholars fail to define clearly the notion of objectivity before they reject it.

单选题 The following are listed as traits of the modern criticism of objectivity EXCEPT ______.

A. the lack of a clear definition is not an intellectual approach
B. objectivity is denounced in a zeal that is religious
C. it is difficult to define objectivity in a consistent and clear way
D. the defining of objectivity is not rigorous enough

单选题 The author's attitude towards objectivity in journalism is ______.

A. that it is necessary to identify the features of journalism involving objectivity
B. that a definition is to be given before deciding whether to reject it or not
C. negative except that the method should be correct
D. that objectivity in journalism is a banal notion