There is a lot of talk these days about objectivity and facts. You may hear media sources claiming to be objective. Don't believe it for a minute.
You may be thinking, if I present nothing but facts, aren't I being objective? Well, that's a start, but you could still be presenting only one side of a story or not providing any context. Hmm.
OK, so now I present the view point of the other side and try to provide context. You're getting warmer, but did you give each side equal time? Did your interviewees provide a fair representation of each side? Yes? Then great! You tried very hard to be fair to both sides and are better than a lot of media. But you're still not objective.
Why not? Because, simply by choosing what to cover, you are engaging in bias. Nobody can cover everything, so one has to make choices -- and those choices are a form of bias.
So what's a conscientious seeker of truth to do? The most obvious is to use multiple sources from different perspectives. News reports from other countries and political viewpoints can be especially useful.
But which of these sources should I trust? Trust the sources that match the facts you observe in your life. And for topics on which you have no personal knowledge, trust the sources which at least try to be objective as outlined above and over time have proven right more often than not.
And then just accept the fact that, while some sources are more objective than others, none is completely objective.
I’m Rick Norris, and that's my perspective.