Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 12:19:44 +1000 From: Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan-AT-qut.edu.au> Subject: M-I: Plantinga's reply to Gary > Carl Plantinga > > A Naive Reply to MacLennan and Raskin > > >I'm happy to see that my book, _Rhetoric and Representation in Nonfiction >Film_, has generated some discussion in the reviews by Jay Raskin and Gary >MacLennan at _Film-Philosophy_. Although I'd like to respond to these >reviews in tandem, they are very different. Both take issue with parts of >my book and raise issues I wish I had the time to discuss. Raskin's review >is measured and fair, but MacLennan's at points degenerates into a >political diatribe. In the interest of brevity, I'm going to limit my >response to the issue of objectivity in the nonfiction film and to >MacLennan's claims about my supposed political naivete. > >To begin with the latter point, I do not appreciate MacLennan's linking my >statement that McCarthyism was 'irresponsible red-baiting' with an >*ostensibly* analogous understatement he proposes about the holocaust in >Germany: 'the country was depopulated'. My position against McCarthyism is >clear in my book, despite my not showing the appropriate sense of outrage >for MacLennan's taste. Second, MacLennan's rhetorical link between my >statement and that of a Nazi apologist is offensive. If his point is merely >a logical one, then why compare my statement with that of a Nazi apologist? >Is it to imply that my views are comparable and my politics similarly >loathsome? Such rhetorical flatulence is not worthy of someone with the >impeccable political credentials which MacLennan implies for himself, his >irritability notwithstanding. > >On a related issue, it is hardly politically-naive (as MacLennan says), >although it is certainly debatable, to suppose that putting on Murrow's >_Report on Senator McCarthy_ was a courageous act and that Murrow took a >personal risk in airing it. I raised the issue to claim that institutional >theories have to account for personal acts such as Murrow's that go against >many of the institutional constraints in place at the time. Most of >Murrow's contemporaries think that he took many risks (not just one), if >you read contemporary accounts. Murrow was going against the wishes of the >CBS management (risk 1), self-consciously (but temporarily) rejecting the >conventions of journalistic objectivity (risk 2), and attempting to destroy >the reputation and power of Joseph McCarthy, who at this time was a famous >and still-powerful senator (risk 3) with a strong public following (risk >4). Murrow received harsh criticism for the show from McCarthy supporters, >from McCarthy himself (who called Murrow 'the cleverest of the jackal pack' >on national television), and from fellow journalists who thought Murrow had >stepped beyond the bounds of journalistic objectivity. > >How can MacLennan deny that it is risky to make a personal attack against a >US Senator on national television in a violent and politically-polarized >country? Granted, it would be riskier to attempt the summit of Everest >without oxygen, but not much. Or is that also a liberal myth? > >Contrary to MacLennan's assertion in his review, Murrow and _See it Now_ >had no salient ties with the US military, at least as far as we know. >MacLennan confuses Murrow's show _See it Now_ with _The Twentieth Century_ >(which did have ties to the military, but with which Murrow had no >professional affiliation). Thus MacLennan's implication that Murrow may >have been involved in some kind of media/military conspiracy is unfounded >speculation. MacLennan also denies Murrow's courageousness because both >Murrow and elements of the US military were alarmed by McCarthy's fascistic >and mind-numbingly horrific activities (there, is that sufficiently >outraged?) at the same time. This is considered by MacLennan to be a >revealing discovery, but it is hardly surprising and only of interest if we >assume some kind of media/military conspiracy for which there is, to >repeat, no evidence. Moreover, the military could not protect Murrow from >the kinds of pressures and personal attacks, both actual and conceivable, >he faced after the broadcast, even if it had take the slightest interest in >doing so. > >On the issue of objectivity in nonfiction film, the reviewers understand my >project only partially. The fault could lie in part with the presentation >of my views, since I discuss objectivity in several separate parts of the >book, some of which they have apparently ignored. Both Raskin and MacLennan >like my analysis of the CBS documentary program, _The Twentieth Century_, >in which I demonstrate Stuart Hall's contention that journalistic practices >having to do with objectivity, fairness, balance, professionalism, and so >on, can serve to mask biases in favor of the status quo. > >Both dislike what I do with this analysis, however. Raskin claims that I go >on to defend _The Twentieth Century_. In my book I am critical of the >series and its politics, but I do defend the concept of journalistic >objectivity, despite its flaws. To make such a defense I introduced the >concept of 'relative objectivity', a concept both Raskin and MacLennan find >to be philosophically and politically problematic. But here is my thinking. >First, we should not completely dispense with objectivity, fairness, >balance, etc. in journalism and nonfiction because although 'objectivity' >can mask biases in favor of the status quo, it also creates a standard for >journalists that can encourage the representation of diverse views. To >dispense with objectivity altogether would be to invite a journalism >without constraints, and one even more rigidly-tied to the interests of >those in power than was _The Twentieth Century_. > >On the other hand, to call for absolute objectivity as an attainable >standard, as both Raskin and MacLennan do, is to ask for pie in the sky. >Raskin writes that 'a demand for the absolute instantiations of these >principles [objectivity, fairness, balance] would be the radical demand'. >MacLennan agrees with Raskin in his review, and argues that the 'correct' >response to my analysis of objectivity in _The Twentieth Century_ 'is to >demand proper objectivity, balance, etc. from the media'. By this I take >MacLennan to mean an absolute objectivity, as Raskin does. > >This leaves me to wonder whether either Raskin or MacLennan read my >analysis of the concept of objectivity (29-32), where I discuss various >ways of thinking about the concept. Objectivity is not the equivalent of >truth, but is a characteristic of accounts or representations of the truth; >thus it is possible to believe in truth while denying that there can be >'absolutely' objective accounts of it. If absolute objectivity means that a >representation should be free from a perspective or point of view, then it >is clearly unattainable. If, on the other hand, absolute objectivity means >a representation which takes into account every diverse perspective on a >subject, it is equally impossible. That is why I endorse what I call >'relative objectivity'. No representation will ever be absolutely objective >on either of these definitions, but we can nonetheless measure our >representations against other representations (88) and demand closer >approximations to absolute objectivity. > >Moreover, the fact that all of our representations are necessarily from >*our* perspective does not require that we abandon all notions of evidence. >MacLennan writes as though I do not give a description of what I mean by >relative objectivity, so I would refer him to pages 212-213 of my book, in >which I invoke Allan Casebier's contention that objectivity is a matter of >degree rather than an absolute condition, and Steven Lukes's point that an >objective representation can be perspective-relative, yet constrained by >''evidence that is as systematic and reliable as possible, and relatable to >other perspective-relative accounts'' (212). We can judge the relative >objectivity of nonfiction films in relation to other films and to what we >imagine the filmmaker might have done to make the film more objective. > >MacLennan's ire is not directed merely at me, but at an entire approach to >the media that MacLennan thinks is insufficiently radical and also >politically naive. He misleadingly dubs this approach an 'American >formalism-cognitivism'. (The approach to which he refers is not just >American but counts among its adherents scholars from many countries. >Moreover, it might be characterized better as a cognitive/analytic >approach, since many are not formalists (although we are interested in >form) and since we are often influenced not only by cognitive psychology >but also by analytic philosophy. It is also a mistake to assume that those >who find this approach useful share a common politics.) > >Whatever our political persuasion, however, we could all use a political >education. So for the moment let us be content with interpreting the world. >Both Raskin and MacLennan put a lot of stock in 'absolute objectivity' as a >radical media practice. By this I'm not sure if they mean that the >mainstream media should become truly objective and therefore radical, or >that radical media makers should employ absolute objectivity as a radical, >that is, non-mainstream practice. If they propose the latter, that is >certainly a controversial prescription, since most radical filmmakers >prefer polemics to the measured sobriety of 'objectivity'. Either >prescription raises problematic issues. > >Leaving that aside, however, let me pose of Raskin and MacLennan (or of >anyone wishing to reply) four questions. First, what is absolute >objectivity of the kind you claim would constitute radical media practice? >Second, how would absolute objectivity be instantiated in a nonfiction film >or a television news report? (That is, would it take into account all >possible interpretations of a subject or all possible answers to a >question, or only those actually made and asked by living persons, or those >made and asked at any time by persons living or dead?) Third, do you know >of an actual film or television program which instantiates absolute >objectivity? (Please let me know because I am dying to see one). Fourth, if >there *is* no such extant film, may we expect one in the near future? If >anyone can satisfactorily answer these questions, then I will have been >enlightened and perhaps, after a few more lessons, can leave the ranks of >the politically naive. > >Hollins College >March 1998 > > >References > >Gary MacLennan, 'Beyond Rhetoric (and Scepticism): A Critical Realist >Perspective on Carl R. Plantinga', _Film-Philosophy: Electronic Salon_, 11 >March 1998 ><http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy/files/maclennan5.html>. > >Carl Plantinga, _Rhetoric and Representation in Nonfiction Film_ >(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). > >Jay Raskin, 'The Friction Over the Fiction of Nonfiction Movies', >_Film-Philosophy: Electronic Salon_, 17 September 1997 ><http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy/files/paper.raskin.html>. > > ********* > >Carl Plantinga, 'A Naive Reply to MacLennan and Raskin', _Film-Philosophy: >Electronic Salon_, 16 March 1998 ><http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy/files/plantinga.html>. > > ********* > >Send your thoughts on this reply and its subject to: >film-philosophy-AT-mailbase.ac.uk > > **************************** > > > --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005