fredley asked a question about whether media impartiality actually exists. Borror0 then closed it as "not a real question". He then clarified that his real grounds were that "this answer cannot be answered objectively." However, most people accept that you can do productive social science without absolute objectivity.

Should Skeptics allow such questions?


Social sciences are most definitively on-topic.

It's possible to write a good objective answer about any social science topic that has been covered, if you try hard enough. Studies have limitations. Good studies even outline them. Bad studies have flaws. A good answer will need to point those out, explain the contradictions, etc.

Basically, the same rule applies here as would if you were to answer a natural science question where we don't know the answer yet: stick to what we know; don't speculate

The problem with the question you referenced is that each answer would be a different take on the definition of "biased." Some people will go for the radical approach and say that there is no such things as unbiased. Others will go for a more moderate position, and point out that you can achieve reasonable impartiality and point to institutions like CBC and BBC. And then, there's many positions in between.

Ultimately, that question was really about asking everyone's opinion on the subject. That's why it was closed.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .