Dearest Foxy,

Oh, I don't think that objectivity means 'fairness to all': it means heartless attention to accuracy, truth and reality and cruel destruction for anything which is BS. And, despite NM's stout defence of it, crap is still crap.

You suggest that "But the truth of the matter is that what we see is not determined by what exists "out there."". Well, yes, it is, or at least it ought to: the problem is how to uncover what is 'out there' as much as possible. And the way to do that is to search for evidence and cruelly junk any 'theories' or beliefs and prejudices for which there isn't any.

Yes, as Popper says, we can never get the 'whole truth' but by Christ, we can get to a point from which we can say that one 'interpretation' is crap, and others may not be. Further evidence will thin out this unfair field by this cruel process of demanding evidence and weighing it up. In the meantime, we can make inferences, in the expectation that they may crumble in the face of counter-evidence. No conjecture or theory is completely provable but, with some evidential backing, some are more likely than others. Nothing fair about it.

Not all stories are true. That may come as a surprise to NM readers. Not all stories are equal. Not all beliefs are equal. Not all cultural practices are equally admirable. I'd prefer to leave that childish thinking to seven-year-olds.

Love,

Joe

Hi Joe, I am not sure what you are saying. Indeed "crap is crap", but who determines what is crap in their view and what is real. I don't agree with some form of censorship to weed out the crap being applied in the first place. Why not allow all arguments to be presented and in that way the informed reader/listener can formulate their own opinion. I happen to believe the Earth is round, based on sound judgement of the evidence provided, but I don't deny the "Flat Earth Society" its right to put forward an alternate theory.
When I attended Catholic High School in the late 1960's, the Science curriculum required the Brothers to teach Charles Darwin's 'Theory of Evolution', equally during Religious classes I was subjected to the Churches teaching of the 'Creationist Theory'. The former was presented with scientific evidence to support it, and made no mention of 'Creationist Theory', nor did it impose any penalty if you were a none believer. On the other hand the zealot teaching the 'Creationist Theory' demanded blind obedience to the theory without presenting any evidence to support it, derided Charles Darwin and his 'Theory of Evolution' at every opportunity, and threatened severe penalties for non believers, burn in Hell. Because of that type of teaching I am an atheist, and a believer in Evolution. it is good to be given both sides of the argument.

Dear Paul,

Very well said.

Precisely the point that I was trying to make.

G'day Paul,

Of course. To support one interpretation of reality, preferably backed by evidence of some sort, doesn't mean to ban all alternative interpretations, no matter how free of evidence. Let freedom of expression reign. Of course, let them all flower, let their adherents elaborate them to their hearts' content and clear up any doubts about their value, but I have to reiterate that not all opinions are equal, not all 'truths' are equal, not all beliefs are equal, whatever that may mean. Let idiocy and fatuity reign too, which is why I would NOT support any boundaries put on NM.

Darwin proposed a 'struggle for survival' between individuals and species in the natural world. I'm all in favour of a 'struggle for survival' of ideas, each given their head. Without that teasing out of faulty notions and proposals, we may not be aware of their faulty assumptions, limitations and defects. One of my favorites is the discussion in Monty Python's 'Holy Grail' about the nature of ducks, women and evil. Faulty premises but pretty good logic :)

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Back in 2013 Marni Cordell then owner of New Matilda
(and a great journalist) shortly before moving on from
NM published a story the morning after protests on
Manus Island led to the vicious backlash that left
Reza Barati dead. Immigration Minister Scott Morrison
said the Iranian had been killed after escaping the centre.
Marni reported that this was not the case. As Morrison
later admitted, and as the Government's own report would
find, Marni was right.

In May 2014 Chris Graham took over the publication. It is
now pivoted to a hybrid-tabloid style, mixing
thorough investigations, and more aggressive stories
and comment

The reason why NM has lasted this long is the people who make
it and who read it - care. It is an outlet that will
continue the weary slog against public indifference on
important issues that others don't deal with. If it
disappeared who would be brave enough to replace it.

Dear Paul,

You may like this quote on the theme of "crap is crap."

One of the few times in a man's life when he's not full
of "crap?" - The morning of a colonoscopy.
Enough said.