|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 04/19/2003 : 14:21:17
|
It's time to take a stand.
At what point does the benefit to a part of the community outweigh professional ethics?
quote:
Journalism-ethics experts, however, say a newspaper's primary responsibility to its community is to tell the truth.
"There's no room in a news report for a false, made-up story," said Parks, a former Los Angeles Times editor. Parks said that to knowingly publish a false story "violates the canons of journalism."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134678091_sherer18e.html
Hmm?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
 Posted - 04/20/2003 : 02:49:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It's time to take a stand.
I'd be happy to make a stand, but I don't think I have enough information, and probably wouldn't unless I was actually involved in the investigation.
I am, however, skeptical about whether the local paper caved too easily to local law enforcement. For me, this case lies too close to a case of entrapment, and the paper definitely compromised it's integrity.
My questions are; 1) Was there compelling evidence that the accused would have harmed another person in the immediate future? 2) What were law enforcement's other options? 3) Does the paper feel that the loss of credibity outweighed all other options? 4) Did all parties involved pursue all other options sufficiently?
Now, I need to backtrack a bit. Overall, the paper probably lost less credibility than it gained by aiding in the capture of a known violent offender. This type of activity goes over well with many people. This was most likely a PR coup for the paper. |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
 |
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2003 : 07:33:22 [Permalink]
|
A good question filthy, and eloquently put as always Tim!!!!!
It is important for journalists to be ethical at all times as they hold a great responsibility in reporting events, however with an issue like this we must ask ourselves, “Does the means justify the ends?” In this case it did, however what if the idea backfired?
Does this open a can of worms? Yes I think it does as it sets a precedent in so that it is O.K. for the media to lie to the public to get an acceptable result.
It, in a way is no different to the selective reporting by the media in things from politics to war. We have seen the propaganda train running from both sides of the fence with the mainstream networks in the States to news reports from Al-Jazeera in the Iraq war – sorry to bring this up AGAIN , and the same with the 2000 presidential election. Has the media flaunted its responsibility by not telling the complete truth in these instances? Is it more important to maintain people's morale and ideals than to report the absolute truth?
The newspaper's credibility is on the line and I think the decision made in this case may have been incorrect. What is said in the article is “a newspapers primary responsibility to its community is to tell the truth” They have lied to the public for a reason, and this time the end result was satisfactory. What would have happened if it weren't?
quote:
For me, this case lies too close to a case of entrapment
An excellent point Tim, however my knowledge of the legal system is sketchy at best.
I suppose, as with Tim, I've answered your question with more questions. It is an interesting issue though.
|
Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from.
Al Franken |
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2003 : 09:02:47 [Permalink]
|
A little off the topic, however still has a little to do with journalistic ethics.
Did the New York Times just change the rules of journalism? |
Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from.
Al Franken |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2003 : 23:28:23 [Permalink]
|
It may be my own personal prejudices rising to the surface, but I have found the mainstream US media to be anything but objective recently. Since the beginning of this war, I seem to remember several stories pop up about how we have found evidence of WMD's and middle to long range missile programs, (including SCUDS), only to find out a day or two later that the evidence was "premature" or some other apologetic retraction. We call it crawfishin' down here. (Picture a crawfish backing into it's hole with pincers held high).
The most recent story was of, I believe, cyanide something or another. Please correct me if I'm wrong. However, the article also mentioned that this chemical was often used in pesticides. I've heard nothing more in the last two days. This could be the smoking gun, at last, but I've learned not to trust the mainstream media. Since I've never trusted internet sources, I no longer know where to turn for accuracy in journalism.
Unfortunately, most of my peers have not seen this. They are, in fact, convinced that undeniable evidence of Iraqi WMD's has been found. They are further convinced that the administration has not lied by telling us that the reason for this war was to protect Americans from the Iraqi regime' s WMD's. They further believe that the shift in policy during the war from WMD's to a regime change to rescue the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator is not a policy change to cover a deception, but a continuation of the original benevolent intent of our administration.
Sadly, many of my working class peers in the under paid deep south continue to believe that huge tax cuts to the wealthiest ten per cent of the population will ultimately make us all better off. Common sense arguments and history make no difference. They continue to believe without even being able to explain why, without resorting to a couple of overplayed sound bites relayed by the administration through the mainstream media.
I find it almost inconceivable how almost an entire national press could report on the investigation into a previous president over an incident that was not even illegal, (Slick Willy's BJ), before it even resulted in a lie was such grand news, while another president has gone AWOL from the US military, lied about being arrested, and blatantly avoided drug testing which he now supports is compleyely ignored. Then there is, of course, the so called 'over vote' count which was ignored while the 'under votes' were used against their opponents.
And, for the final blow, most Americans still honestly feel that today's press has an obvious liberal bias, although they can't quite figure out how it is still liberally biased. All they can do, including the well known commentators, is to recite a list of anecdotal evidences and one flawed study that doesn't even support the claims it is submitted for.
I find that the US media has been tainted, and it will be a long time before I can trust them again. |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
| Edited by - Tim on 04/26/2003 23:35:51 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
