|Crooks article and integrity...||Djudd|
Jun 8, 2002 7:29 AM
|I work in the newsroom of the Wash Post and would like to offer a little insider perspective here.
I showed my editor the article and he thought as I did there might be some ethics issues for the publication. At any credible news organization every word is weighed in light of its' impact and truth. We spend hours here tortured over every word and phrase and this not uncommon. Even columnists must judge their words. Ms. Crooks and her editor did not think or did not care about the implications of the "humor" in the piece. In my view, this is a serious integrity issue. The protections of the 1st amendment mean that the onus is on the journalist to maintain an ethical stand so as not to abuse free speech.
I suggest Houston area riders write and email the publication and point out this issue and strongly suggest they be more circumspect on how they use the public trust of a free press.
Please do not contact this woman at home that is harassment and akin to USSR tactics. She is allowed her opinion and the forum for changing her mind is not in her home. As a matter of fact it was a bad idea to put the address on this forum, that smacks of a thought police scenario, very dangerous.
|I agree with you, this should be part of forum pact||ishmael|
Jun 8, 2002 8:56 AM
|Sometimes arguments end up in name calling on this site but it's really not a big deal, but this is. People need to be responsible about how they respond to this woman. I didnt read the post below which gives out here address, hopefully people are dealing with this the right way.|
|re: Crooks article and integrity...||Me Dot Org|
Jun 8, 2002 9:37 AM
|I agree: Name an instance where using fear to intimidate freedom of speech is a tactic that you look back on with pride.
Ultimately freedom of speech shows trust in reason. By that I mean that implicit in the concept of letting people propose ideas that may be harmful to other people is the believe that good people will be able to filter those ideas, or that good people will call attention to the flaws of the reasoning. We have to believe that our arguments will carry the field of battle. Be strong in your argument, but be reasonable.