5 ms·

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

TomOfTTB 17y ago
Did you even read this before you quoted it?
- anthonyb 17y ago
  Jeez, talk about the pot and the kettle. From a five second skim, the harm minimisation part seems pretty appropriate: Harm limitation principle ...This principle of limitation means that some weight needs to be given to the negative consequences of full disclosure, creating a practical and ethical dilemma. The Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics offers the following advice, which is representative of the practical ideals of most professional journalists. Quoting directly:[17] * Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. * Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief. * Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance. * Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy. * Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
  - TomOfTTB 17y ago
    Show compassion does not mean omit facts. In fact, the article you quote says just the opposite. Beyond that this is not a tragedy. This is someone dealing with the consequences of their actions. Finally publishing photos off someone's social networking site is not invading their privacy. Again I point out that you didn't read the whole article you quoted. You zeroed in on the points that you think support your argument and ignored the rest. Maybe you should take more than five seconds and read the whole article
    - anthonyb 17y ago
      I think we've already established your level of reading comprehension, so I won't argue any of your points, except to say that publishing photos from someone's stolen iphone is absolutely an invasion of privacy, and how you can think otherwise beggars belief.

TomOfTTB 17y ago

Did you even read this before you quoted it?

anthonyb 17y ago
Jeez, talk about the pot and the kettle. From a five second skim, the harm minimisation part seems pretty appropriate: Harm limitation principle ...This principle of limitation means that some weight needs to be given to the negative consequences of full disclosure, creating a practical and ethical dilemma. The Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics offers the following advice, which is representative of the practical ideals of most professional journalists. Quoting directly:[17] * Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. * Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief. * Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance. * Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy. * Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
- TomOfTTB 17y ago
  Show compassion does not mean omit facts. In fact, the article you quote says just the opposite. Beyond that this is not a tragedy. This is someone dealing with the consequences of their actions. Finally publishing photos off someone's social networking site is not invading their privacy. Again I point out that you didn't read the whole article you quoted. You zeroed in on the points that you think support your argument and ignored the rest. Maybe you should take more than five seconds and read the whole article
  - anthonyb 17y ago
    I think we've already established your level of reading comprehension, so I won't argue any of your points, except to say that publishing photos from someone's stolen iphone is absolutely an invasion of privacy, and how you can think otherwise beggars belief.