It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
People will inform themselves in any way they choose. The press is only one avenue and that does not mean it will be factual
originally posted by: skunkape23
I blame mainstream right-wing media for more or less ruining my relationship with my father.
He is a hard working man and has earned enough wealth to take care of himself and his family.
All he watches on his television is FOX news.
He is an intelligent man...it makes me sad that he is so duped by their nonsense.
I consider myself apolitical.
Neither lefty nor right. I watch as little mainstream media as possible.
But sometimes when at his home and the FOX is blaring at 100 decibels, I hold my silence and leave in short order.
If I point out that this all propagandistic nonsense, I get something like...
"Why don't you go watch that commie # on CNN. You ain't gone queer on me have you?"
Maybe he'll come around someday. That would be cool.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert
Obligated by what? As far as I know, they are only obligated to the contracts they sign when they go to work.
By the ethical codes of their own organizations.
With the right of the free press comes objectionable material.
Similarly, with the right of the First Amendment comes objectionable speech.
Constitutionally, the press, in and of itself, is a vehicle of information to the public, and a free press is, as such, more important.
It is not a right granted to ensure the public has a vehicle for information.
originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: introvert
It is not a right granted to ensure the public has a vehicle for information.
Except that it is. There never was any other vehicle for information than free speech and a free (printing) press. The church? Don't get me started on religion. The aristocats and their oh-so knightly cretins? Yeah, sure...
What are those other vehicles of information you are getting at, biased 'scientific' studies? And how is the unqualified and distracted worker supposed to discern the spin from facts? That's essentially the main problem with the MSM already.
You can't take an old document literally in order to develop new values for this new age of information. Otherwise you're just deemed to end up with no adequate concepts, like censorship of fake-news on fckbook for example.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert
Obligated by what? As far as I know, they are only obligated to the contracts they sign when they go to work.
By the ethical codes of their own organizations.
That doesn't mean anything of substance.
Each news organization has a written code of ethics and guidelines. If they don’t there are journalist organizations that provide them.
I understand ethics and principles are areas of difficulty for relativists, but let’s not pretend we don’t know what they are.
but let’s not pretend we don’t know what they are.
I understand ethics and principles are areas of difficulty for relativists
You can learn a lot, from a dummy.....
What divides us is basic IQ. Idiots will believe anything, over and over, even from other idiots.
And what good has that done them? Just because they have a code of ethics and such does not mean they are obligated to follow them.
They are only obligated to do what their contracts specifically state.
The Journalism Ethics Policy posted on this site applies to all journalists at The New York Times Company, and to certain other executives, as defined in Paragraph 88, and to nonstaff contributors in connection with their Times Company work. The policy is a minimum standard: individual units of the company may adopt separate policies, in which case the more stringent provision covering any given practice will apply.
For Guild-represented employees, enforcement of this policy is subject to applicable collective bargaining agreements and local law.
At The New York Times newspaper, the Ethical Journalism handbook dated January 2004, which was the model for the company-wide policy, governs journalists’ conduct. The two documents are highly similar, except for the more detailed company-wide provisions that concern blogging and online behavior.
Try to differentiate for a second and spare us the childish attacks, Les Revisionist?
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Like I said, contractually-obligated.
The Source of the Political Divide is Not The President
both of which brought to light his good genetics