"The real problem is that the media are mostly staffed by people too stupid to understand rational logic, and they have a vested interest in making genuine science look bad/over complex/boring.
Its not an accident that the cast of Friends are made to look good, while scientists are protrayed like "Beaker" in Sesame Street. Its because if intelligence is good, then the journallists/actors/TV anchor men etc are bad. They are not going to stand for that, are they?"
You make interesting points. I'm a journalism major, and as the reporter who covers the "tech/IT" beat on our campus paper, I'll try to give an "insider's" opinion.
For me, I try to be 100 percent accurate every time I write a story. If the network or a core piece of software went down, I want to know why, and I want to explain why. Of course, sometimes things do go over my head. I don't have the knowledge many of you have, but it's my responsibilty to get you to come down to mine and most normal people's intelligence.
That's my job.
I'm not positive, but in my media law class I'm pretty sure we're taught that commercial speech is not afforded the same rights as, say, political speech.
For example, Valentine v. Christenson (sp?) where the Supreme Court ruled an advertiser was not guarenteed the right to advertising on the street with flyers, even if he attached an editorial.
I don't think spam is considered free speech in some or many cases.
"Please explain to me how I am not both legally and morally responsible for my actions? These people will go off and kill in the future and I did nothing to stop them."
As a journalism student myself, I think I may be able to answer this a *little,* though I'm no ethical expert.
Ethically, in my opinion, a journalist would need to report this serial killer to the police.
That said, I'm not a "working" journalist either. I don't know what the industry answer would be.
Slashdot Mirror
"The real problem is that the media are mostly staffed by people too stupid to understand rational logic, and they have a vested interest in making genuine science look bad/over complex/boring. Its not an accident that the cast of Friends are made to look good, while scientists are protrayed like "Beaker" in Sesame Street. Its because if intelligence is good, then the journallists/actors/TV anchor men etc are bad. They are not going to stand for that, are they?" You make interesting points. I'm a journalism major, and as the reporter who covers the "tech/IT" beat on our campus paper, I'll try to give an "insider's" opinion. For me, I try to be 100 percent accurate every time I write a story. If the network or a core piece of software went down, I want to know why, and I want to explain why. Of course, sometimes things do go over my head. I don't have the knowledge many of you have, but it's my responsibilty to get you to come down to mine and most normal people's intelligence. That's my job.
I'm not positive, but in my media law class I'm pretty sure we're taught that commercial speech is not afforded the same rights as, say, political speech. For example, Valentine v. Christenson (sp?) where the Supreme Court ruled an advertiser was not guarenteed the right to advertising on the street with flyers, even if he attached an editorial. I don't think spam is considered free speech in some or many cases.
"Please explain to me how I am not both legally and morally responsible for my actions? These people will go off and kill in the future and I did nothing to stop them."
As a journalism student myself, I think I may be able to answer this a *little,* though I'm no ethical expert.
Ethically, in my opinion, a journalist would need to report this serial killer to the police.
That said, I'm not a "working" journalist either. I don't know what the industry answer would be.