was not objective

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "was not objective" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to describe a situation, opinion, or analysis that lacks impartiality or neutrality. Example: "The review of the film was not objective, as the critic had personal biases that influenced their judgment."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Science

Academia

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

17 human-written examples

"Mukasey was not objective.

The New York Times

Your analysis here was not objective at all.

University of California, Berkeley

He appeared in features in Discover and the San Francisco Chronicle, suggesting that Syngenta's science was not objective.

The New Yorker

"We will appeal because we believe the judge was not objective in making the decision," Nahak said.

The Guardian

His presentation of evidence was not objective but was given in such a way as to make his opinions paramount.

The New York Times

Dr. Gary Weber, executive director for regulatory affairs at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, said the report was "not objective" and was "negative in tone".

The New York Times

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

43 human-written examples

The promotion process, she said, "wasn't objective — I was not the favorite at the time".

The New York Times

You're not objective.

Independent

It's not objective.

The New York Times - Sports

And that's not objective".

The New York Times - Health

David Irving is not "objective" -- but who is?

The New York Times

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "was not objective", ensure the context clearly explains the basis for the perceived lack of objectivity. Provide specific examples or evidence to support your claim.

Common error

Avoid using "was not objective" without providing context or justification. Simply stating that something wasn't objective without further explanation can weaken your argument and appear biased itself.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "was not objective" functions as a descriptive statement, indicating a lack of neutrality or impartiality. As confirmed by Ludwig AI, it's grammatically sound and commonly employed. It serves to characterize a subject or viewpoint as being influenced by personal feelings or biases.

Expression frequency: Common

Frequent in

News & Media

64%

Science

21%

Academia

14%

Less common in

Formal & Business

0%

Wiki

0%

Encyclopedias

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "was not objective" is a common and grammatically correct way to express that something lacks impartiality, as supported by Ludwig AI's analysis. It's used across various contexts, including news, science, and academia, to critically assess situations, analyses, or perspectives that are influenced by bias. While it's crucial to provide context and justification when using this phrase to avoid appearing biased oneself, it remains a valuable tool for highlighting a lack of neutrality. Alternatives such as "was biased" or "lacked impartiality" can be used depending on the specific nuance you wish to convey. The most authoritative sources using this phrase are The New York Times and The Guardian.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

was biased

Indicates a strong inclination or prejudice towards a particular side or viewpoint.

was subjective

Highlights that the assessment or opinion is based on personal feelings or tastes rather than facts.

lacked impartiality

Emphasizes the absence of neutrality and fairness in judgment or treatment.

was predisposed

Suggests a pre-existing preference or attitude that influenced the outcome.

was skewed

Implies a distortion or bias that affected the accuracy or fairness of something.

was colored by

Indicates that personal feelings or experiences influenced the perception or interpretation.

was influenced

Suggests that external factors or personal biases affected the decision or perspective.

was one-sided

Highlights the lack of balance and the focus on a single viewpoint.

was partial

Signifies favoritism or a tendency to support one side over another.

was prejudiced

Indicates a preconceived judgment or bias, often based on stereotypes.

FAQs

What does it mean when something "was not objective"?

It means that a statement, analysis, or assessment was influenced by personal feelings, opinions, or biases, rather than being based solely on facts and evidence. It "lacked impartiality".

How can you tell if something "was not objective"?

Look for signs of bias, such as selective use of evidence, emotional language, or a clear preference for one side of an issue. Check if the source considered multiple perspectives or presented information fairly.

What are some alternatives to saying something "was not objective"?

Depending on the context, you could say it "was biased", "was subjective", "was one-sided", or "lacked impartiality".

Is it always bad if something "was not objective"?

Not necessarily. In some contexts, such as personal opinions or artistic expression, subjectivity is expected. However, in fields like journalism, science, and law, objectivity is generally considered essential for accuracy and fairness.