3 ms·
> If they are corrupt but still report on corruption, then they haven’t failed as journalists. In this specific case, yes, I think they have failed. It's diffe
by akuji1993 7y ago
> If they are corrupt but still report on corruption, then they haven’t failed as journalists.
In this specific case, yes, I think they have failed. It's different when you're a non-vegan writing about veganism and critizise non-vegans.
It's not okay to be corrupt and condemn corruption in your article. I can't take your opinion seriously if you don't live at all by the values you seem to protect or preach for in your writing...
- oliverx0 7y agoThis is called a tu quoque fallacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque “ Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin for "you also"), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is an informal fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).”
- klagermkii 7y agoA moral framework is only useful if it can be adhered to. If we define "good" as a standard that can't be maintained it ceases to be a valuable definition. Sometimes "whatabouism" is just trying to make sure that the standard being demanded is based in reality and can be maintained by others who find themselves in the same position.