Objective knowledge is nearly impossible to obtain if all parts are broken down. Can one person truly be objective if the knowledge they have obtained is able to be questioned? How can we verify the knowledge of one person if two other’s perceptions of that knowledge differ? Can we be sure of only those three sides to question if others have not participated in the conversation?
Objectivity is twice defined by Schudson as first the faith in facts and distrust of values, saying acceptance of universally agreed upon truths and disbelief of the perception others may believe to be truths different from our own. The second definition requires objective statements to be “deemed legitimate by a professional community”; however, in the cases where some believe journalists are not technically under the professional title, the idea that objectivity in journalism is determined by editors, for the consumption of the public, is something to be considered almost unethical unless the ability to say “this image is a line” can be paired with “unless it is a square, a cube, or a tesseract”.