Two Rants for the Price of One
Ethical Journalism
I found an interesting article on the internet while searching for something completely different. I don't want to go into specifics, because I worry that if I summarize the exact content of the article because I don't want the "issue" the article discussed to overshadow the issues I have with the article.
Basically, the article was talking about how everyone in a certain politician's electorate passionately hated said politician, how that politician was known to make horrible remarks about groups, and how a lot of the people in that area were afraid to speak out for fear of retribution. It compared a political party in a state to the Mafia. (Direct quote.)
Now, if this is true (and maybe it is, maybe it isn't), there's a big problem. However, the article mainly used quotes from people who were "too afraid to give their real names."
There are two problems with this:
1. The journalist could completely make up quotes and make up the entire story. There's no way of verifying that anyone actually said what the article claims they said. (And frankly, a lot of the quotes were pretty far-fetched.)
2. Even if the journalist was reporting what he heard accurately, who's to say the unnamed aren't lying? If they're reporting on the condition of anonymity, then there's no accountability. They can make up whatever they want.
I realize that there are some cases where a journalist has to use an unnamed source. That's fine. But to write an entire article based only comments by people who won't even stand behind their words with no other verifiable sources? Not acceptable by any stretch.
1. Politics Free Zones
I disagree very strongly with some friends on political issues. I don't think they're bad people and I think that they want the same thing I do: what's best for this country. Unfortunately, we have very different views. And, at times, their discussions of political issues can get a bit in your face. I don't like it, but I bite my tongue because that person is a friend and they have a right to their opinion (especially if said opinion is written in a personal journal).
That said, I think that there are some communities and groups where political discussions are inappropriate. If someone gets tired of hearing the media either praise an issue or person they oppose or attack an issue or person they support, they can turn the television off or not read a newspaper or magazine. In other words, they can avoid things that focus heavily on politics.
Most, if not all, of the groups I belong to online are non-political. It doesn't mean that the people in the groups don't understand the issues or have strong opinions. It just means that, for various reasons, the members of the group don't see a reason to bring politics into the discussion. There are a few exceptions, but they're usually made up of people I know well and who either have similar opinions or can disagree respectfully.
I don't think that I should have to check my LJ Friends list and see a political post in a non-political comm, especially when the group is very large and the entire reason for the group is to offer support for a project. And it's really frustrating because the person in question couldn't use an LJ cut, despite trying it three times, and then posted a reply saying something to that effect.
I respect the right of everyone to have an opinion. However, I respect my right not to have political content shoved in my face in a non-political comm. If posts like that turn out to be fair game in the comm, I'm leaving.
I found an interesting article on the internet while searching for something completely different. I don't want to go into specifics, because I worry that if I summarize the exact content of the article because I don't want the "issue" the article discussed to overshadow the issues I have with the article.
Basically, the article was talking about how everyone in a certain politician's electorate passionately hated said politician, how that politician was known to make horrible remarks about groups, and how a lot of the people in that area were afraid to speak out for fear of retribution. It compared a political party in a state to the Mafia. (Direct quote.)
Now, if this is true (and maybe it is, maybe it isn't), there's a big problem. However, the article mainly used quotes from people who were "too afraid to give their real names."
There are two problems with this:
1. The journalist could completely make up quotes and make up the entire story. There's no way of verifying that anyone actually said what the article claims they said. (And frankly, a lot of the quotes were pretty far-fetched.)
2. Even if the journalist was reporting what he heard accurately, who's to say the unnamed aren't lying? If they're reporting on the condition of anonymity, then there's no accountability. They can make up whatever they want.
I realize that there are some cases where a journalist has to use an unnamed source. That's fine. But to write an entire article based only comments by people who won't even stand behind their words with no other verifiable sources? Not acceptable by any stretch.
1. Politics Free Zones
I disagree very strongly with some friends on political issues. I don't think they're bad people and I think that they want the same thing I do: what's best for this country. Unfortunately, we have very different views. And, at times, their discussions of political issues can get a bit in your face. I don't like it, but I bite my tongue because that person is a friend and they have a right to their opinion (especially if said opinion is written in a personal journal).
That said, I think that there are some communities and groups where political discussions are inappropriate. If someone gets tired of hearing the media either praise an issue or person they oppose or attack an issue or person they support, they can turn the television off or not read a newspaper or magazine. In other words, they can avoid things that focus heavily on politics.
Most, if not all, of the groups I belong to online are non-political. It doesn't mean that the people in the groups don't understand the issues or have strong opinions. It just means that, for various reasons, the members of the group don't see a reason to bring politics into the discussion. There are a few exceptions, but they're usually made up of people I know well and who either have similar opinions or can disagree respectfully.
I don't think that I should have to check my LJ Friends list and see a political post in a non-political comm, especially when the group is very large and the entire reason for the group is to offer support for a project. And it's really frustrating because the person in question couldn't use an LJ cut, despite trying it three times, and then posted a reply saying something to that effect.
I respect the right of everyone to have an opinion. However, I respect my right not to have political content shoved in my face in a non-political comm. If posts like that turn out to be fair game in the comm, I'm leaving.