Medias 'moral obligation'

[Deacon]

[quote="Azurain";p="412976"]You can have a personal bias and not allow it to become a significant professional bias... you realize this, right?[/quote]
It is a possibility, but it is rarely the reality, unfortunately.

So the media could (and I'm not saying it is) be unbiased while at the same time being chalk full of liberally biased people.

Again, it's technically possible, but expecting that from human beings is a woefully naive thing to do. You can't take things at face value. It's possible for Pat Robertson to hold strong personal views on some random subject but to discuss it without bias, right? Except you would NOT take whatever he says at face value, would you?

[mikehendo]

The media has a moral obligation to let people know when they are taking a partisan stance, so that someone doesnt see a report and assume that it is non-partisan, when it really is.

Although, a few people in the media should have thier licenses revoked for blatantly fabricating stories, or at the very least not fact checking before reporting..
*cough* Dan Rather *cough*

[Dr. Tower]

The "media" as a whole has no moral obligations. That would be like telling The Onion that all of their news has to not only be completely truthful, but also germaine. In my opinion the First Amendment weighs in heavily on this. Should lying be outlawed? Nope, because then The Onion would go away. Slander and Libel, however should, and are outlawed.

What should happen is that the populations should hold the Networks feet to the fire. The populations should check with other networks, and other news outlets (internet, newspaper, radio, all other forms of media) to get a grander view of things. If a network is seen as being (relatively) unbiased, and this is the sort of thing that the world wants, than that network should do well. Because, as we all know, they are in this for the money. Well, most of them are, some of them are in this to spread their ideas and the money thing happens to be a good side effect. Again, all of that is what should happen.

Bottom line, the media only has obligations that the populations holds them to, moral, factual or otherwise.

[Deacon]

Oh Rrrreginald... I DISAGREE!

*SCREEEeeee...*

[mikehendo]

[quote="Tower";p="414694"]The "media" as a whole has no moral obligations. That would be like telling The Onion that all of their news has to not only be completely truthful, but also germaine. In my opinion the First Amendment weighs in heavily on this. Should lying be outlawed? Nope, because then The Onion would go away. Slander and Libel, however should, and are outlawed.[/quote]
The Onion should never be compared to a real news source. Everyone knows that the stories in there are fictitous. It is when REAL news sources make stuff up, or pretend to be unbiased when they arent that is the problem.

[R.Bloodgood]

Breaking News: Tower is a serial killer. More on this and other stories at 11.

The seriousness of the charges demands that we hold a trial now. I have documents that support my claims. I refuse to disclose my sources, as doing so would compromise my journalistic integrity. How dare you question me? I'm a reporter, dammit!

[Dr. Tower]

[quote="mikehendo";p="414919"][quote="Tower";p="414694"]The "media" as a whole has no moral obligations. That would be like telling The Onion that all of their news has to not only be completely truthful, but also germaine. In my opinion the First Amendment weighs in heavily on this. Should lying be outlawed? Nope, because then The Onion would go away. Slander and Libel, however should, and are outlawed.[/quote]
The Onion should never be compared to a real news source. Everyone knows that the stories in there are fictitous. It is when REAL news sources make stuff up, or pretend to be unbiased when they arent that is the problem.[/quote]

The question itself asked about the "media". Is The Onion not part of the media? Oh wait, it is. Guess what? This site is part of the media. Again, it is my opinion that media has no moral obligations of its own, only legal (i.e. no slander/libel). The moral obligations of the viewer should dictate the obligations of the news source for the truthfulness of their news.

Breaking News: Tower is a serial killer. More on this and other stories at 11.

The seriousness of the charges demands that we hold a trial now. I have documents that support my claims. I refuse to disclose my sources, as doing so would compromise my journalistic integrity. How dare you question me? I'm a reporter, dammit!

The first sentence is valid concerning this poll. The second paragraph, however, has nothing to do with the media, and everything to do with the courts. Also, I am entitled to a speedy trial by a jury of my peers, so having the trial now is not a problem by me. However, I have the rights to review the documents to be used against me by the prosecution. As a reporter, you are not the prosecution. The prosecution will also not use documents for which it does not know the source. After all of this, I am found innocent, yet I still have a bad name.

But wait! You presented false information against me that has tainted my name (if you worked for a "respectable" news source, note that this part is very important). That happens to be called libel. I can now sue you legally, and win. If you reread my original post, I said that slander and libel are illegal and should be illegal. All media is (or should be) held accountable for slander/libel. The reason that The Onion is never sued for slander/libel, is that people who read it know that the news is false. Thus, the name is not tainted at all because of the source that it came from.

On another note, I eat Frosted Mini Wheats. But that's more of a cereal killer than a serial killer.

[R.Bloodgood]

The point I was making is that a biased source presents information that supports their beliefs. I made the statement as a referance to the 60 Minutes forgeries. The "seriousness of the charges" is a media favorite (they've been using it for years), and the "journalistic integrity" is practically a quote.