In the aftermath of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s remarks on Trump and her apology, there’s a piece of the conversation missing, Ezra Klein writes. Ginsburg is expected to be an “objective,” neutral observer, but no one is a truly neutral observer. Klein writes: “This is the problem with confusing ‘objectivity’ with objectivity. It might be nice if we could find judges (or journalists!) devoid of opinions about major issues in American life, but so far I don’t think we’ve located any. So what we ask, instead, is for ‘objectivity’: for those opinions to be concealed and left to exert their influence quietly, opaquely, sneakily. The result is the same — or worse — but the process is hidden.”
+ Our explanation of the lost meaning of “objectivity”: The method is objective, not the journalist.