tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7515713317068251331.post1460781906568888911..comments2024-02-02T00:21:02.687+13:00Comments on stargazer: just report the newsstargazerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00430290445762377335noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7515713317068251331.post-49913439167251259122010-10-19T22:40:29.934+13:002010-10-19T22:40:29.934+13:00anon, i can see what you're trying to say. bu...anon, i can see what you're trying to say. but the danger of the type of approach you're advocating, well it's what leads to fox news. i'd much prefer a media outlet that gave me the facts than one that presents the "news" the way that fox does. in an ideal world, what you are advocating for would be what we get, but unfortunately we don't live in that ideal world.stargazerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00430290445762377335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7515713317068251331.post-50515678864588751282010-10-19T14:55:56.004+13:002010-10-19T14:55:56.004+13:00I disagree Stargazer
To use your climate change e...I disagree Stargazer<br /><br />To use your climate change example we need the media to make a strong case for the moral imperative to save our children's future! How can we expect anything less? Who is harmed by the media calling on people to do what is moral and right? We shouldn't subscribe to the fiction that there are two reasonable and equally valid responses to climate change when one is the path of the future and the other is the path of greed, death or at best stupidity. If the media implies that there is not a moral imperative to act against climate change, it is lying.<br /><br />The same is true of child abuse, abortion, etc etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7515713317068251331.post-44345146198402533022010-10-12T22:13:47.720+13:002010-10-12T22:13:47.720+13:00i've been thinking about this for a while. th...i've been thinking about this for a while. the problem with moral dimensions is that they will have a particular slant. it's ok if that slant is on your side of the argument, but if it isn't? take climate change for example. i'd rather not have someone for whom the moral argument is that we should do nothing because it isn't happening. i'd rather they reported on the science, and let us make up our minds.<br /><br />giving opinions is fine if it's on the opinion page. but even then, when i was involved in pushing for a more democratic & fair voting system, it didn't help to have the times giving a one-sided slant in their opinion pages either.<br /><br />even with the most in-depth investigative reporting that uncovers corruption or some such, just tell us what you found. we can work out from there how bad it is and what we think about it.stargazerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00430290445762377335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7515713317068251331.post-42425663097189980642010-10-12T13:19:22.642+13:002010-10-12T13:19:22.642+13:00I'm not sure I agree. I want to see newspaper...I'm not sure I agree. I want to see newspapers condemning politicians when they do something wrong, not just dryly reporting the facts.<br /><br />My problem is actually that reporters spend too much time reporting the facts and not enough time commenting on the moral dimensions of those facts.<br /><br />It's the "just report the facts" mentality that means the news media has done nothing to condemn the benefit cuts under this government.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com