Talk:Contextual objectivity

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 13 August 2007 by reviewer Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs).

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Accurate references[edit]

Can "Slate" really be considered an accurate reference?

Although the Washington Post is considered credible, being a newspaper of record, does its "witty", "editorial", and self-proclaimed "commentary" internet-circulated counterpart, funded by advertising revenues, count as a credible source? Wikipedia is not the venue for unproven opinions to be expressed as fact.

I submit the recommendation that the reference be removed and the article be rewritten, if need be, or otherwise improved to reflect objectivity and the subject matter. I will remove the reference and make a note to view the talk page, in the edit comments. If the page is reverted, hopefully someone will stumble upon this discussion.

As per slate website:

Slate is a daily magazine on the Web. Founded in 1996, we are a general-interest publication offering analysis and commentary about politics, news, and culture. Slate's strong editorial voice and witty take on current events have been recognized with numerous awards, including the National Magazine Award for General Excellence Online. The site, which is owned by The Washington Post Company, does not charge for access and is supported by advertising revenues.

96.240.167.180 (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

physics?[edit]

Someone please explain how quantum mechanics applies to journalism. Like here. GcT (talk) 06:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't help much here. --Joujyuze (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Contextual objectivity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120211102357/http://www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/Fall02/Iskandar.html to http://www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/Fall02/Iskandar.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The articles doesn't explain anything[edit]

It just seems to be a contrived way of saying "Not very accurate hot take reporting". I still do not know, what is the concept of Contextual objectivity. I would say the article should be deleted, but it is linked as by the Al Jazeera article. Also I can't find anywhere about "contextual objectivity".

Searching on web, it links me back to Wikipedia, a little about Al Jazeera. It's just a coinage. None of the sources define it and the best explanation directly from him is...."which means that different networks have to appeal to their target audiences." El Harawy coining the word, did not explain it. It does not seem to have been used a lot more. It seems like a proto-neologism that never stuck.

"which means that different networks have to appeal to their target audiences."

From reading the different vague sources, basically contextual objecity, is a claimed subjectivity, contradicting another's claimed subjecivity. "War of liberation" vs "War of occupation".

--Joujyuze (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]