Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Study a definition of ethics and maybe you will find out.
A word without context is nothing more than an opportunity for misinterpretation.
Besides, have you even looked up the definition or is this another one of those "what it means to me" type of things?
I think the definition clearly defines the concept. Take the definition and then apply it to any field. The core purpose of the field is guided by that definition.
If you are in science, your goal is to achieve a result that is consistent, tested, proven, and you do so applying rigorous procedures to insure that the result is not tainted by outside influence (your personal bias). That is, you apply ethical standards to preserve the integrity of the goal.
The same is in journalism. You do understand that do you not?
A logical fallacy. A generalized response taken to levels of impractical accountability. Another display of an unethical comment. You use literal meanings as you like, then play generalized when you want. Do you want honest answers or are you here to score points for your side? Do some looking into unethical debate, logical fallacies, rather ethics in general.
Too funny.
See, right now the one that you are trying to use against me is ad hominem. So, I'm not interested in your ad hominem or your red herring.
What I AM interested in is what you are trying to deflect, which is the reason that Ms. Palin's response, her obvious lie, is not being labeled unethical.
Is it really a good idea for someone who used personal email accounts to conduct government business and accepted gifts from industry executives and others to lecture anyone about ethics?
Come on! Isn't it obvious enough that Couric is biased and wants to bring Palin down?
No, every reporter is biased, every interviewer has an agenda. The media starts out as every candidate's enemy. I know, some of you are going to say not this time, MSM has clearly favored Obama. Talk radio didn't. Fox News didn't. Some of the media that supported Hillary didn't favor Obama. The reason the media is every candidate's enemy is because they are hoping you slip up, make a mistake. The best stories aren't about how clean cut and sharp you are, the best stories are about how you lied and cheated, how you stabbed people in the back, how you evade the accusations, and how you're getting desperate. Every candidate knows that the reporters are trying to dig up dirt, paydirt.
McCain/Palin knew that going in. They picked the softest interviews they could, while keeping a semblance of credibility. They planned on Palin being able to build up momentum, but somehow her style and content didn't win the points they expected. I personally think Palin is a savvy politician, that she has substance and that she is competent. But she's not running alone, and that has complicated things because she's got to keep her views and opinions reasonably in line with McCain's. She's getting extra scrutiny because she's the new voice in all of this.
Biden isn't new, he's run for President, he ran for the nomination, his views and stands are all out there. Obama and McCain, their opinions and plans are all out there. Palin is the one people want to, even need to, know more about. To be honest, I think people are discouraged not because these interviews are so frustrating, but because Palin seems to think that she absolutely must push McCain's talking points. People liked Palin at the convention because she was just Sarah Palin. Voters aren't stupid, all the internet junk about whether she could balance being a mother and being a Vice President, about her obligations to her newest child, about Bristol's unplanned pregnancy, that's just junk. People want to know what Palin thinks, about the economy and about Iraq and about Afghanistan, not what McCain/Palin think, just what Sarah thinks. There isn't an extensive record in Congress like Biden and McCain have, and Palin hasn't been getting queried for the past twelve months or more like Obama. Sarah Palin, who are you? That's what we want to know. That's why she was asked about what her news sources are. The media is a minefield, but part of navigating your way is being able to tell a mine from just a simple stumbling stone.
People understand what ethical/unethical behaviour is. We are specifically asking for examples where Palin has either been treated unethically. In the example you provided earlier, her interview was edited (as are most interviews), but the specific comment re: Russia was not taken out of context.
~ButterBrownBiscuit~
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
A word without context is nothing more than an opportunity for misinterpretation.
Besides, have you even looked up the definition or is this another one of those "what it means to me" type of things?
I think the definition clearly defines the concept. Take the definition and then apply it to any field. The core purpose of the field is guided by that definition.
If you are in science, your goal is to achieve a result that is consistent, tested, proven, and you do so applying rigorous procedures to insure that the result is not tainted by outside influence (your personal bias). That is, you apply ethical standards to preserve the integrity of the goal.
The same is in journalism. You do understand that do you not?
I give up, clearly there is an evil leftist conspiracy that has taken over the media in an attempt to destabilize the free world and plunge us into chaos. If not for the efforts of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etal. we would be doomed. Can you spell "paranoia" - not sure I can!
See, right now the one that you are trying to use against me is ad hominem. So, I'm not interested in your ad hominem or your red herring.
What I AM interested in is what you are trying to deflect, which is the reason that Ms. Palin's response, her obvious lie, is not being labeled unethical.
/sigh
An ad hominem is a personal attack to deflect a failure to state. I stated that it was a fallacy and why.
She was asked if she reads these articles, she said she reads a lot of sources, when asked specifically, she said "well all of them, whatever comes across my desk". Its a general comment and to claim it a lie is a logical fallacy and an attempt to spin agenda into this. Your argument is weak, assumptive and rather devious to be honest.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
