| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
A question of journalistic ethics?
John Germ, Photographer
 |
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 2:34 PM on 04.09.10 |
->> Here is a story that has been unfolding here in Cleveland that I found very interesting. The judge in question has had run-ins with the editor in question in the past. On the one hand there is the argument that IF the judge made the comments and not her daughter, it is important information for the public to know. The interesting question is: since the paper could not prove WHO typed the comments, were they justified in publicly releasing the owner of the username in violation of their own privacy policy?
Curious what those in the media think of this? And, is there a route that could have been taken to investigate judicial misconduct without publicly identifying the judge as the owner of the username?
Or, is this potentially an instance of a member of the paper using the public right to know as an excuse for an attack on a judge they have personal history with?
http://tinyurl.com/yj9f3w8 |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 3:25 PM on 04.09.10 |
| ->> John, I can't speak to the ethics of this situation but I will tell you it has sparked a large amount of discussion in newsrooms across the country regarding anonymous postings to stories on newspaper websites. there are two camps in this discussion, one group feels let the comments (and hits) come. the other group wonders why (in the past) when a letter to the editor appeared on the op-ed page, the writer and their identity were confirmed and their real name attributed to their comments. as you probably have seen there are some pretty nasty comments on almost any story you read online nowadays. but especially anything political or sports based. it has continued to amaze me when knuckleheads threaten the president with a comment thinking they are truly anonymous. many of the comments I read on websites where some fake name is used tend to truly amaze me. those of us who use the internet regularly know there is no TRUE anonymity. In this case I kind of agree with the paper. it's totally inappropriate for a judge or any member of their family to be commenting on proceedings via the anonymous monicker on the net. but now they want $50 million in damages? for what? being stupid? it amazes me how many people in this country think they should be rewarded for having no common sense. |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 3:57 PM on 04.09.10 |
->> Chuck - I agree in that I'm all in favor of doing away with anonymous. And sadly I also can appreciate the business side of things where there would be less traffic if it went that way. I think that's a completely separate discussion though.
If I may suggest as the originator of this thread - I'm particularly interested in people's opinions based on the fact the paper currently does have an anonymous policy and does have specific guidelines for protecting identity. If it's interesting enough to others we can have a separate thread on whether anonymous postings are good or bad.
And don't get me started on tort reform. Not only should a person be punished for frivolous lawsuits but the attorney as well. But again - off topic. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|