Letters to the Editor
Nequals1
Published Letters: 332 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Radicals Inciting Violence
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dave Neiwert of Orcinus blog is also worried about the ratcheting up of murder and mayhem rhetoric. (Link to his post at my name.)
If there is a President Obama come next Jan. 20, normal folks better brace for what the right-wing crazies have in mind. Because it's becoming clear that they are winding themselves up now for a fresh spate of violence if Obama wins.
You can find the signs in the things they're saying now, both on Internet forums and in the things they say when they think no one is listening.
[snip]
The same man also told authorities he planned to visit Pittsburgh so he could get on top of a high rise and start shooting black people. And of course, the judge let him go on bail. Would I be crazy to suspect that if he were a Muslim talking about shooting white people from a high rise and hoping John McCain would get killed, no judge on earth would let him go?
In any event, a pattern is already developing, ranging from the Klan fellows who promise that Obama will be shot to the white supremacists who are actually rooting for him to win because they're certain he will fail. We're hearing a lot of language from the racist and "Patriot" right indicating that they expect a Democratic president to enact policies (particularly regarding gun control) that will inspire "civil war." Which means they are looking for excuses to act out.
[snip]
The extremist right went into remission, largely, with the election of George W. Bush; militias disbanded because their followers believed the threat of an oppressive, gun-grabbing, baby-killing "New World Order" had largely passed. They bided their time by forming Minutemen brigades. Now they can see that their "safe" era is coming to an end.
All this time, there really has been hankering for an excuse to start acting out violently, and they see any Democratic presidency as providing that excuse. But an Obama presidency in particular will do so.
-
Professional ID/credentialing
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While I think I understand GG's point, I can't help but feel that all professionals across disciplines have an ethical obligation to identify themselves as such when they are acting within the scope of their practices. (journalism, healthcare, law, etc.)
Why?
Because professions are given a public charge, and they must uphold the public's trust and the social contract.
To withhold that information when approaching a stranger to conduct the business at hand, be it an interview, good Samaritan first aid, or legal advice, etc., would not be ethical. Professionals are assumed to bring with them specialized knowledge, a code of ethics and an ability to act independently in their respective fields.
However, in the context of a public figure greeting the public in a public place or at a public event, then I'm not convinced that the interviewer need provide credentials. However, if someone chooses not to identify oneself, then the gotcha moment will destroy trust with the subject, and access may/likely will be limited.
My own experience in approaching a Senator was to identify myself by name and as a policy blogger w/ my site url.
As a good Sam nurse providing first aid in a foreign country, I also ID'd myself by credential (RN).
It's all about the credibility and trust, methinks.
-
@ GG: Context and Intent
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Interesting questions, and the only way I can think to answer is by evaluating the particulars within the framework of intent and context.
If someone overhears a pol. making an illegal deal and forwards it to a journo, then I get that - it's in the public's interest to know.
But if someone looks through a window in which the wind has blown the curtain aside and sees a pol. having sex with a non-spouse (when married), then I'm not so sure. Public need to know? Informed citizenry?
How intrusive can the source be and still be ethical? Trespass? Use surveillance technology and techniques?
As to intent, what is the aim of the source? Gather information about a specific issue of interest to the public? I'd be interested to know what's in Cheney's shredder truck, for example.
Oppo for a pol to use against an opponent? Swift boaters?
I think it's tangly and thorny, but again, I'd go with a preference to ID/credential unless there was no other way to gather facts for a specific aim/story that was intended to serve the public's interest.
-
@ GG: Context/Intent Drive Ethics
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How that can be OK, but it's suddenly unethical for the person hearing the information in confidence to report it himself? The only difference is that in the OK case, there is a journalist involved, and the other BAD-BAD case, there is none. This Rule has nothing to do with ethics -- it's all about protecting the journalist.
Well, it wouldn't "suddenly" become unethical, and again, the information should be evaluated on its intent and context, so I agree - in this situation referenced, it doesn't matter whether the information is obtained by a journo or by a second source.
I remember when George Bush was talking to Tony Blair and the conversation was inadvertently recorded. Neither of them knew it was being recorded.
It's so weird -- I don't recall a single person here - not one -- objecting to the broadcasting of that conversation. How come?
That information wasn't obtained via an intentional open mic situation (IIRC), and so again, in the context, it was ethical to use as it was in the public's interest (informed citizenry) to know what Bush was saying and in what manner he was saying it (although it was disturbing on many levels). It was done in a public setting at an official event in which Bush was acting in his official capacity.
-
@ jkalos re: "un-adverserial"
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I would frame it as having a duty toward skepticism rather than adverserial.
I'll reference the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics (link at my name):