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.
It would have been better for her to have said the "wrong publications," than for her to say nothing. Not being able to name even one newpaper or magazine makes her look clueless. What is worse than that?
~ButterBrownBiscuit~
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
Surely you jest!
If she even breathed the wrong publication you guys would be jumping up and down...and God forbid she mentions Fox News.
LOL
I must have read a dozen posts today that say "If she'd have just said something". If she said something or nothing the same rhetoric on her response or lack thereof would be going on here.
Anyone know if Obama and Biden have been asked what they read?
Please provide an example of the media being unethical in regard to Palin or McCain. Some media outlets may be biased, but I have seen nothing unethical from the media in this election cycle. If you want to talk unethical, I can show you a few McCain ads . . .
Hint . . . because you disagree with it, does not make it unethical.
How about the edited versions of the interviews? Cutting out part of a response in order to make a person look like they are stupid is unethical.
As for your "hint", if you are going to go down the "relativistic" "what it means to me" in order to claim it is legit, then you yourself are displaying unethical practices in your discussion.
Simply put, displaying people out of context with the intent to mislead is, unethical. Maybe they taught you differently in college, but I went to a pretty liberal university and you wouldn't get any of my professors to agree that is acceptable, even the wacky ones. They know trying to defend that position is a road to failure.
It would have been better for her to have said the "wrong publications," than for her to say nothing. Not being able to name even one newpaper or magazine makes her look clueless. What is worse than that?
~ButterBrownBiscuit~
In her defense, a 12-month subscription to the "Witch Doctor Monthly" is not a "source".
What questions has Palin been asked that are unethical?
~ButterBrownBiscuit~
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Ethics is about getting to the truth, not creating your own version of it. Unethical journalism is kind of like unethical science. When you start inserting your own bias into the results or allowing that bias to steer the results, you have betrayed the entire point of your field.
Asking a question in a way so you can get a response that allows you to display, edit, or portray someone in a light you want is not ethical. It isn't "getting to the truth", it is "manufacturing the truth". Just look at all the slanders out there. It isn't about the truth, it is about getting people to see their version of it. That's not journalism, its unethical slander pushing an agenda.
George Bush answered the question honestly when he admitted that he didn't read newspapers.
It's kind of ridiculous that some of you are labeling the media "unethical" in this but saying nothing about Palin's unethical (lie) response of "I read everything."
The unedited transcript of her comments have been released. They very clearly show that she was not edited in a way that negatively impacted what she said - if anything they did her a favor.
~ButterBrownBiscuit~
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
How about the edited versions of the interviews? Cutting out part of a response in order to make a person look like they are stupid is unethical.
As for your "hint", if you are going to go down the "relativistic" "what it means to me" in order to claim it is legit, then you yourself are displaying unethical practices in your discussion.
Simply put, displaying people out of context with the intent to mislead is, unethical. Maybe they taught you differently in college, but I went to a pretty liberal university and you wouldn't get any of my professors to agree that is acceptable, even the wacky ones. They know trying to defend that position is a road to failure.
What questions has Palin been asked that are unethical?
~ButterBrownBiscuit~
Do a google for "Palin gibson interview unedited" and then read through all of the comments on the interview. Note the famous comment about Russia where the media pretty much only shows her comment about Russia and the fact that you can see it from an island in Alaska. Now, read all of the part they did not add such as the following question and responses from her. She goes on to explain the issue and when you read the entire comment, you get the proper context of what she was talking about.
That edit was unethical. This type of "journalism" has been growinf for years. Remember Dan Rather and his fiasco? Did you happen to see the last Bush Interview with MSNBC? Read and watch the full version of the interview and think about the questions and answers. Then watch the edited ones. There is a big difference in the "context".
It is much like people who half-quote people out of context so they can spin a point. It is unethical, it is not journalism, but tabliod propaganda.
If more people spent time trying to get to the content of what people say rather than attempting to catch them on silly things, we might have a better understanding of our representatives. Many "unethical" canidates count on this and they play the slander game. Most do, and it is ALL unethically driven content used to steer people who are too lazy or ignorant to look past the curtain.
How about the edited versions of the interviews? Cutting out part of a response in order to make a person look like they are stupid is unethical.
How has this been done to show her in a bad light? Your comment is the first I've heard of it in the case of Palin. All the clips I've seen have been unedited and fairly long, containing both the full question and answer.
Or are you just providing a hypothetical example?
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.
