However different their opinions, ideas, and stances on public or international issues, objectivity remains a fundamental principle that unites all analysts, columnists, and commentators. This principle demands that each and every one of them be careful to avoid ever projecting their sentiments and personal biases with the facts of the matter they are analyzing and commenting on. Only with constant vigilance and an appropriate distance from the event being analyzed can they lay things out without personal biases and emotions.
However, they sometimes fail when the writer/commentator/analyst is closely linked to the subject matter. When this happens, objectivity obtains a different definition or goes in a different direction. We notice this when writers and commentators express their opinions on issues related to their own countries, especially during times of crisis.
One can sense, in my own writing for this newspaper, especially my columns on the situation in my country, Libya, the intense fury I feel over the disasters and calamities happening there. Because of my love for my country and my deep fear for its future, I can sometimes unintentionally abandon my vigilance and overlook the need to maintain a reasonable distance from events, observing the overall picture from afar to make out its details. I do not apologize for this, following the saying of Allah: "God does not burden any soul with more than it can bear."
I don't think I am the only commentator who feels this way. Indeed, writing or commenting on issues about one’s country, in my opinion, is different from writing about other matters. It is usually imbued with heartfelt emotions that stem from the belief that the crises and events unfolding in our countries affect us negatively or positively, even if we live thousands of miles away. If we were to suppress our feelings and sentiments and conceal our positions, we would be committing a crime against ourselves and our people. This is the first point.
Secondly, whether we like it or not, I believe that a writer simply cannot remain neutral about developments in their country. We either support and stand by our country, or we oppose and critique it. Thus, I believe there is no place for neutrality regarding the events occurring in our homeland. Loyalty to a country and its people makes having a position mandatory.
Neutrality and maintaining a considerable distance from certain events to preserve objectivity, in my opinion, do not apply when one’s nation risks division, as is particularly true for the current situation in Libya.
Of course, that is not to say that we completely abandon objectivity. Objectivity, in the context of writing about one’s homeland, takes on a different form. It becomes aligning with the homeland and its people. This involves maintaining an equal distance from all the parties of a conflict, without hesitation to condemn those who deserve condemnation and always looking to find attention to the silver lining in every development. The goal is to expand the scope of agreement and to ward off threats by minimizing areas of disagreement. It involves constantly urging all parties to take paths that bridge differences and facilitate rapprochement. All of this should be done with form and style that clearly stresses what needs to be said without evading it or seeking to flatter.
While restraining emotions and feelings regarding matters concerning the homeland can sometimes be beneficial, it is often ineffective. Indeed, the interests of the homeland are essentially personal interests, and defending them is essentially self-defense.
Objectivity on the issues and crises of one’s homeland means positively aligns with one’s country. It is not a betrayal of the country’s people like burying one’s head in the sand like an ostrich. It also means not placating one party at the expense of others, in pursuit of personal gain that could bring immediate reward but will backfire on the long term.
