Objectivity and fact

Articles are considered analysis, often emerging from and quoting stories, that can gather, relate and inform. Journalistic standards are applied, sources quoted, multiple varied consciousness sought. However, objectivity is neither possible, nor do we consider it desirable, and writings should be understood as developmental, subject to the consciousness, culture, emotion and social constructs that the writers are contained in.

Positive

“You cannot change other people. You can only change yourself.”

Teal Wiki

We believe in the power of optimism, love, and curiosity. That there are no bad people, just situations and contexts. So, when we interview Corporate Organisations, large and small, it is to encourage, to share and to report the happy efforts being made by people who are already aware of the problems and trying to learn and act where they can. Humans are at their best when they are trusted.

Reporting on Emotion

Serious Journalistic challenges arise when alternative and cross-paradigm social-cultural emotion becomes the most important aspect of an event, concept or situation.

Modernist societies, that have defined the Modernist code of ethics of Journalism, require the reporting of verifiable physical facts. Modernist society indeed understands its consciousness, culture, reality and decisions as stemming from lists of physical laws imposed by the physical statements from the isolated minds of its singular leaders. It’s his-tory is structured like this and strongly establishes this understanding in the minds of its peoples.

Natural organic human villages and towns around the world as yet un-affected by the onward march of Modernism do not understand their culture and society in this way. The scale is smaller and the shared emotional consciousness can thus be the driving force controlling both how the people act and the consciousness and administrative decisions of any leaders. However, this cannot be reported on by simply asking a member of such a community because, unless they have embedded themselves also in Modernism for substantial periods in their life, then they would have no knowledge of the difference in self-conceptualization.

Furthermore, several revolutions around the world, often based on a her-story of women consciousness, have now placed emotional ideals as the basis of their activities, leaving the physical society almost completely without physical law and regulation. Problems, solutions, opportunities are all understood at the emotional level, not physical.

For example, when a rich landlord attempts to evict an poor family from its home, Modernism would understand the problem physically and impose objective physical laws and resources to preemptively solve the problem. These other natural organic societies however, would understand the landlord as still a valuable member of the community with emotions, love and curiosity and begin subjective emotional inquiry into why a human being might act in such an aggressive and un-friendly way. The reasons and solution will, of course, be subjective, relating to emotional history of those involved. Humans are understood as being able to love and to change and learn and the top priority of these communities is always to care for all its members, including landlords, no matter what things they might temporarily be doing wrong.

The level and style of love, friendship and happiness are crucial phenomenon to compare between the Modernist and Organic societies. The level of feelings of safety vs. insecurity are other critically important phenomenon. The very viability and indeed goals of such an Organic society depend on these comparisons. The Modernist goal of physical efficiency is a subjective part of Modernist dogma and its Physicalist journalistic style.

The only measuring device for emotion is a human heart, and that measurement in turn can only be communicated face-to-face. And, whilst it is extremely accurate, that heart must first be surrounded by the hearts it wishes to measure for years in order to calibrate itself.

So, as a journalist who wants to be at least honest, to not mislead, to be un-biased as far as possible, to maybe present verifiable information for those who cannot be there, how can one present these fundamental social-emotional differences that the subject people are not necessarily even aware of?