There is almost no such thing as objective writing. It rarely exists. A writer can try to write with as little subjectivity as possible but unless they are writing about a completely uninteresting subject like "The Chemical Make Up of Soil" they are most likely not going to achieve their goal. Everyone does not agree with those statements above, but I can prove it. In a paper that is supposedly objective and factual I can still find sprinklings of opinion. For example in the report provided by NPR news reporter Elizabeth Shogren, "As Gray Wolves Return, So Does Debate Over Hunting" there are clear indications as to which side she is on. She is advocating for the wolves. Whether this is because of her own personal beliefs or because of her surroundings, Elizabeth sides with he wolves. She is a good writer, however she starts the report with quotes from environmentalists and park rangers thus presenting their argument, pro-wolf. She also ends the report with "Conservationists hope there's a hunting ban in the Rockefeller Parkway by then." after putting in a very short couple of paragraphs in defense of the state of Wyoming, the anti-wolf side. By ending a report with a sentence like that, it is clear which side the reporter wants the reader to dwell on.
Whether it is because of social, economic, religious, or political affiliations it is incredibly difficult to present any report without a certain degree of bias. The author may convey their opinions through the quotes they choose, the adjectives used, and/or their last sentence. There are also so many things that are accepted as fact even if they are still technically opinion. Even if`the report sprinkled with opinion may be considered less accurate it is more fun to read a paper with adjectives, creative language and quotes as well as a little bit of who the author is.Without opinion writing and reading would be boring.
