By Brad Locke
January 14, 2005

(AgapePress) - Sit in the bleachers at enough high school basketball games, and you soon realize how scarce -- or rather elusive -- is objectivity.

Of course, fans aren't expected to be objective. As a journalist, however, I am expected to view things through a dispassionate lens. I certainly try, but deep down I know it's fruitless. That's because objectivity and fairness are not synonymous, despite what Merriam Webster says.

That's the great downfall of the traditional media ethic. Objectivity is lauded but rarely, if truly ever, achieved. WORLD magazine's Marvin Olasky, in an October 2002 column, pointed out that all journalists are "directed by some understanding or worldview ...." Olasky also cited the late theologian Cornelius van Til, who said that neutrality is non-existent.

I suppose objectivity is reachable in a sense. When justice is meted out, it's done so based on the laws that govern the society. Judges and juries are supposedly objective parties in this due process, with the evidence informing their decisions. Even if such objectivity is attained, though, remember this: laws are ultimately the result of someone's worldview, meaning even if jurors are able to check their opinions at the door, someone's moral bias is always involved in a decision's rendering.

As far as journalism goes, objectivity is much harder to achieve. Every reporter has beliefs and past experiences that have shaped his perception of the world, and those will inevitably affect his work. We observe things in different ways. This does not mean, however, that fairness is impossible. Fairness can be achieved without objectivity. Doing so merely requires that the reporter subdue his own biases and thoughtfully consider the other side and give it equal weight. It doesn't mean one should be less passionate about his convictions, but personal passions should not trample justice.

I've taken the scenic route to get to my point, which is this: Fairness is something I would like to see more of in sports. Fans make ignorant remarks based solely on bias -- you see, or rather hear, this especially on talk radio and in the bleachers. Players blindly take up for each other to the detriment of the team or sport. Sports journalists harp on a hot topic (see: Randy Moss) just to get a juicy sound bite.

Fans, players and journalists often forget that our fellow men are not faceless, unfeeling androids. It's easy to detach a stranger from his humanity, but doing so is a major obstacle in the pursuit of fairness.

As for fans, you expect loyalty and devotion, but that doesn't excuse ignorance. When an opposing player commits a foul that isn't called, officials are booed. When a home team player gets away with the same thing, not a peep. That means fans aren't really concerned with the integrity of the game, just that their team gets the breaks and wins. Is that fair?

(A quick digression. You may ask, aren't referees and umpires purely objective? See paragraph 4.)

If a home team player performs well, he's cheered. If not, he's booed. Doesn't matter if he's got a nagging injury or if his offensive line is in shambles, he'll often be labeled a failure by fans and media. Is that fair?

With players, loyalty to each other comes before most anything. When Steve Francis' Orlando teammate and good friend, Cuttino Mobley, was traded an hour before a game, Francis understandably took it hard. He said the shock of it prevented him from playing his best that night. It's fine to be sad or even angry about it, but Francis gets paid millions to give his best effort every game. If there's something keeping him from doing that, then call in sick. Don't mope around the court like a child.

Vince Carter and Tracy McGrady have also recently admitted to not giving 100 percent during trying times. Is this kind of behavior fair to the fans, the team or the game?

Christians ought to be particularly sensitive to the distinction between objectivity and fairness. For example, I adhere to a Calvinistic theology, so when I read or hear an Arminian argument against the complete sovereignty of God, I cannot suddenly abandon my convictions and "objectively" consider each viewpoint as if I had never heard them before. I can, however, pay close attention to the Arminian viewpoint and try to understand it. If I am debating an Arminian, I should not try to suppress his opinions, but strive to let them be expressed as much as mine. That's fair, isn't it?

Objectively speaking, I'd say yes.