By STEPHEN DAUSE
YOUTH CORRESPONDENT
I'm human like the rest of us, and I make mistakes. (Surprise.)
Let me give you a couple of anecdotes. They may bore you, sound very familiar, or both, but bear with me.
For one thing, I procrastinate. Ask any of my teachers, and they will agree.
My youth editor will probably tell you I'm pretty good with getting things in on time, but it's all lies, I assure you.
I also am a rather biased individual. Most of my friends will quickly agree.
Yet I do in fact write news stories, along with opinion pieces, in a reputable newspaper.
What's the deal? Can I be objective while doing both? Can anyone?
No, not really. We are all human, as the cliche I mentioned earlier plainly states.
But then comes another, more basic question: What is objectivity? When one reads textbooks, newspapers and online blogs; watches cable TV news, commentary and satire; or thinks about any topic for an extended period of time, fact and opinion can get cloudy, or worse--merge.
In the abstract, the distinction between the two seems nice and pretty. Yet broad conclusions, necessary to run a government of any size, require analysis. Analysis necessarily involves opinion.
Unless we want to provide everyone who wants to know the answer to any issue with its complete history, without any summary whatsoever (which is, of course, impossible), we'll have to make a whole lot of summaries and general statements. Yet summary involves opinion.
The only truly objective channel with political information on it is C-SPAN, which simply shows televised congressional meetings, speeches and the like.
Even then, you have to wonder: Are they being perfectly balanced in the time they give to Democrats and Republicans? Even if they are, should they not perhaps let third parties have more air time?
The idea of "balanced" news actually assumes that two or more sides have equal weight. If you're not a moderate, though, that will not be your opinion.
So why should anyone besides moderates be doing the news, presenting it as "balanced" even though they probably think there is a better conclusion to draw, one over the other?
Obviously, the nice and pretty separation between fact and opinion quickly becomes foggy, confusing and frustrating.
Back when this country was founded, newspapers were more like journals of opinion than they were straight news sources. The oft-quoted James Madison, who wrote many entries in the Federalist Papers, was writing opinion.
There was no Page One news; instead, simply publications from both sides, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
Oh, and while we're in the general time period, Britain, I guess could still argue about whether we rebels were just insurgents or true freedom-fighters. But we, the victors, wrote our history, so tough luck.
Now back to my self-admitted procrastination: If you, the reader, have been paying very close attention, you will know that this rant is actually the third of five in an occasional (meaning I don't have to stick to a schedule) series on the subject of editorial writing.
I had had one published near the end of the last couple months, but I missed February.
To sum it up, I don't think we should go back to the days of all opinion and no straight news.
If you're a responsible and truly interested political commentator, reporter, or both, you should be able to reasonably determine what is fact (or close to it) and what is obviously opinion.
Even better, you could point out the murky areas to your readers. What a concept--an admission of the absence of stark clarity to an editorialist's readership? Perish the thought.
So, sadly and for now, I'll leave you with this: I am a biased procrastinator. But I convince myself that I try to make as few mistakes as possible and correct them when I do.
STEPHEN DAUSE is a senior at Colonial Forge High School.