Too many times I have read columns in The Northern Star that remind me of one of Gilda Radner’s characters on “Saturday Night Live.” If only someone at the Star would have pointed out the obvious error in the columnist’s reasoning, he/she could say “never mind” and we would be spared a certain amount of aggravation.

The most recent example is Dave Kirkpatrick’s column on Edward R. Murrow and the place of “objectivity” in journalism. I doubt Mr. Murrow would be pleased. The fatal error in Mr. Kirkpatrick’s argument was in injecting his opinion of what objectivity is into his column. His opinion is very narrow and is a perfect example of what can happen when a reporter attempts to interpret rather than report.

There is a line in his column which exemplifies his misinterpretation of objectivity: “Opinion is replaced by objectivity, and objectivity replaces insight.” That is ridiculous. With an objective use of the word “objectivity,” a reporter is by no means blocked from disclosing inaccuracies, misstatements, scandals, or anything else that occurs or might occur. It is, in fact, the journalist’s responsibility to do so. It is up to the reader or listener or viewer to decide issues of motivation, guilt, etc.

Reporters are paid to present the facts, good or bad, right or wrong, Democrat or Republican. There is, of course, a proper place for opinion; it is called the editorial page.

Mr. Kirkpatrick even went so far as to imply that objective reporting negates the possibility of presenting “expert” views on issues. On the contrary, an objective reporter would present a wide variety of “expert” views, giving his/her readers the opportunity to make informed decisions.

All in all, I do have to applaud Mr. Kirkpatrick for consulting Webster’s for the definition of objectivity. I just wish someone at the Star would have turned to him and said: “But Dave, did you look up the definition of the word journalism?” I think he owes us all a “never mind.”

S. Kathleen Rettig

research associate

graduate school