| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Question re media ethics |
Question re media ethics
1–7 out of 7 messages
| Author | Message |
| newscred |
Posted - 2/8/2013 8:59:47 PM | show profile | flag this post
I realize I may be posting this in the wrong section; possibly belongs on Watercooler or Media. But I always enjoy the feedback of those here in Current Events. Don't know how often you check out the other sections. I was reading the headlines on Google news and saw one about the Bush's emails being hacked. The New York Times was the source and presented the sub-head this way: New York Times (blog) - ‎1 hour ago‎ W. paints! Who would have thought it? Thanks to a hacker known as Guccifer who wormed into the computer of the 43rd president's sister, the world has learned that George W. Bush is an amateur - I would say serious amateur - painter. Made me think about ethics and news. A criminal act (hacking) that exposed personal information between family members of the former President is being given a pass by this particular (newspaper based) media blogger. "Thanks to a hacker..."? Why is it that the media so easily spreads stolen information? And atop the spreading of the information they apparently believe it's okay and even kind of cool; hence the "thanks..." comment. |
| orthicon |
Posted - 2/8/2013 9:49:23 PM | show profile | flag this post
you and i agree on very little, if anything..but.. i agree with you here..it should not have happened..it was completely unethical for the times to have done what it did.. but i'm beginning to believe that journalistic ethics are more or less a joke anymore.. the "social media" crap has bastardized what we veterans used to call journalism.. instead of decrying the lack of ethics.. and often morals.. as we should be doing, we the journalists are falling right into lockstep with them after 42 years..i'm glad i'm out of it.. |
| thesecondcoming |
Posted - 2/8/2013 11:14:10 PM | show profile | flag this post
It's not about ethics.... It's about politics. Remember all the intrigue about Palin's email, and trying to find something bad about her? Now, they hack into Bush's email. Would the NY Times hack into Bill Clinton's email? Ethics doesn't exist in the media, in my opinion. |
| mpdodgson |
Posted - 2/8/2013 11:51:28 PM | show profile | flag this post
Nope. Sorry. Legit news item. That's life. (at least in 2013) And if you're that upset about it, I suggest YOU are the guilty one here by spreading more gossip around. If YOU don't like it, then don't do it. "I was reading the headlines on Google news and saw one about the Bush's emails being hacked." Oh. So you read a news headline and decided to click further. "The New York Times was the source" No...the NYT was NOT the 'source' per se, you read their article on who and what was 'the source' I searched "New York Times (blog) - ‎1 hour ago‎" and found that both Drudge and Google News had the same piece--which leads to this: TIME Magazine article "The Lesson of the Bush Family Email Hack: Be Worried" Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/08/the-lesson-of-the-bush-family-email-hack-be-worried/#ixzz2KMyC3Gxa Oh. So it's a piece ABOUT Bush being hacked. And while it's pretty innocuous by itself, the piece points out that even if a former president can be hacked, all of us are vulnerable (and yes, the Secret Service is investigating). They (TIME that is) then points the finger at the 'Smoking Gun' website'...and they do this type of tabloid stuff all the time... http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/bush-family-hacked-589132 So--this is what happened: You clicked on a site which led to another site, which reported on what another site had reported. The very fact that a former President can get hacked? You're DAMN RIGHT that is a legit story. Whether it's TMZ or the Smoking Gun, or one of Rupert Murdochs rags--if you want the juicy details on Dubya's emails, (or Lindsay Lohan's latest arrest report) knock yourself out. I hope I made myslef clear there... |
| mpdodgson |
Posted - 2/9/2013 12:00:32 AM | show profile | flag this post
So...secondcoming? secondcoming/cruise??? You didn't even bother to do the research I did (which took a whole one minute) before you shot your mouth off?? "It's about politics." NO it's not. It's about sleaze. Rag, tabloid, gossip, fake journalism. You know, the stuff that's made Fox's Murdoch a billionaire. "Would the NY Times hack into Bill Clinton's email?" NO. They wouldn't. And they DIDN'T hack into Bush's either. Why don't you 'look before you lip' as my father would say. |
| cdnreprtr |
Posted - 2/10/2013 10:15:30 AM | show profile | flag this post
So I guess ... ... "Climategate" and the hacking and release (of selected) climate change scientists' emails is criminal and wrong? Not just given a pass by the right-wing, but celebrated and copied and boasted about. Typical cons .. what to have it both ways. hypocrites. |
| etaoin shrdlu |
Posted - 2/11/2013 10:14:02 AM | show profile | flag this post
A couple of points... First, secondcoming compared Bush and Palin email stories. The Palin emails were part of the public record. They were official, state documents under the Alaska FOIA -- made on government computers as a part of official state business. The Bush emails are completely different. These are personal emails, sent on private computers after the Bushes left office and were private citizens. The Times did not break the story and was not involved in the Bush email hacking. The hacker supplied the emails to "The Smoking Gun" which put many of them on it's website. At that point, the genie was out of the bottle and the publication of the emails became a story in itself. Again, the comparison would be more like the above mentioned "climategate hoax" where selective emails were published to make climate research seem biased. |
1–7 out of 7 messages
