[LINK] grog gamut
rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au
Tue Oct 5 07:13:35 EST 2010
On 4/10/10 9:08 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 18:24 +1100, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
>>> What was attacked here by News Limited was the man's privacy.
>> Is it that simple? Publication takes place in public; is there an
>> absolute right to privacy once someone has decided to do something in
> I said nothing about absolute rights to privacy. I said his privacy was
Yes, but without considering the right to privacy in this circumstance,
merely stating that privacy was attacked is a non-sequitur.
>> in that context, there's a paradoxical benefit to flow from
>> the "outing". The author hasn't been sacked; there is a tiny opening of
>> a window of precedent. That's a good thing.
> What *are* you talking about? Because some good came of it, it excuses
> the original unconscionable act?
No, just observing an unintended consequence of the article.
>> Two out of four. I think the breach of ethics - at least, the formal
>> ethics of the trade - is not certain.
> No? I am quite certain. The guy was outed for not good reason at all. If
> you think differently, explain to me how the reasons given actually fit
> the case.
The MEAA Code of Ethics are here:
Now, I said that a breach of the code is uncertain. Argument could be
made on clauses 3, 4, 5 and 8 - but in each of these, regardless of my
own opinion, I think that actual breach is uncertain.
"No good reason" is an individualistic value judgement. I happen to
agree with it, but I also see that merely because I think something is
distasteful is an incomplete case for condemning it.
To me, the key question in this debate is this: what moral force should
be given to the blogger's custom of anonymity? On what arguments can we
base the assumption that anonymity is a right?
>> Well, I'd refer also to the code of ethics. But sorry, if someone said
>> "I don't like what I say are the motives for Journalist X writing Story
>> Y", that's a chaos. Who's interpretations of nice motives apply?
> Again - what *are* you talking about? The journalist (I use the term
> loosely) gave his reasons. I have considered them and find them utterly
> inadequate and hypocritical. I don't have to invent motives, I am
> referring to the ones the "journalist" actually gave. They included a
> laughable "public interest" motive.
>>>> I'm also a little offended
>>> It's not against the law to say that! How can you be offended by
>>> something that is not against the law?
>> Easily, Karl. The offence is personal;
> The question was rhetorical. Rhetoric is something that journalists use
> a lot; it's been around since the ancient Greeks. So have ethics, but
> they don't seem to get used as much...
> Regards, K.
More information about the Link