What is inappropriate in a News/Current Affairs/Politics sense? (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

Ok, given that subjectivity rules the world, even though most acts seem to be constructed within a this or that framework, where should one draw the line between tolerable and inappropriate, and who should be the one (or the group) deciding where this line exists and whether it should be fluid or not? Are we in need of a line at all?

Edit: This is in general rather than BOS specific.

 

[Korn]

Ok, given that subjectivity rules the world even though most acts seem to be constructed within a this or that framework, where should one draw the line between tolerable and inappropriate, and who should be the one (or the group) deciding where this line exists and whether it should be fluid or not? Are we in need of a line at all?

What could u use simple english plz

 

[townie]

it's difficult to define wats appropriate, as some will see some things as appropriate, and others will see it as not.

when somebodies alive, i think they're pretty fair game, providing comments arent racist, (by racist, i mean denegrating a group purley for their race, with malicious instent), homophobic, sexist, etc.

once they die, i think some respect should be shown, a dead person shouldnt be immune from criticism, but insulting a person whose just died (where that person is considered a good person to most i.e. not hitler; dictators; mass murderes) should be refrained from, as for making jokes about people who have just died, a very grey area.

/2cents (hope that made sense)

 

[Vangineer]

wat cant be in it?
everything nearly,

especially racist, discrimination, gay, lazo, wogs, azn, gangs, genocide, too much swearing, threads which are not political, threads which say this forum's shit, threads which bag the mods, threads that tell mods to stop deleting their threads
if u piss a mod off, u'll get banned too. Stupid imaginary power trip!!

 

[Generator]

This is in general rather than BOS specific (I should have made that clear).
Korn, that is simple English.

 

[Korn]

This is in general rather than BOS specific (I should have made that clear).
Korn, that is simple English.

"Ok, given that subjectivity rules the world even though most acts seem to be constructed within a this or that framework…and whether it should be fluid or not?"

I was a bit unclear on this part

 

[ur_inner_child]

the thing is, what is?

could you find the following dialogue (occured in a classroom)

malaysian girl: there are a lot of girls that are dark skinned nowadays

teacher: not as dark skinned as you though

some people found it offensive, others didn't because it didn't imply hatred toward the person, merely pointing out a natural difference between the races.

I think there are a lot of grey areas, and that the framework we're asking about varies from place to place, ie, in public or in a courtroom.... as well as the fact that it's way too subjective

if you believe that homophobia isn't appropriate at present day, I can tell you that it didn't use to be. values are challenged and changed. the amount of tolerance and education in a society is one factor that influences what we see as appropriate - just like anything else, eg mannerisms and stuff.

Personally, I think that anything that implies hatred or disgust toward one person, but suggests a collective group is inappropriate.....

but what about hatred towards child-abusers?

It's just to do with societal norm, and because this changes over time, who knows what else could be considered normal..... or appropriate....

i end my rant here

 

[Korn]

the thing is, what is?

could you find the following dialogue (occured in a classroom)

malaysian girl: there are a lot of girls that are dark skinned nowadays

teacher: not as dark skinned as you though

some people found it offensive, others didn't because it didn't imply hatred toward the person, merely pointing out a natural difference between the races.

I think there are a lot of grey areas, and that the framework we're asking about varies from place to place, ie, in public or in a courtroom.... as well as the fact that it's way too subjective

if you believe that homophobia isn't appropriate at present day, I can tell you that it didn't use to be. values are challenged and changed. the amount of tolerance and education in a society is one factor that influences what we see as appropriate - just like anything else, eg mannerisms and stuff.

Personally, I think that anything that implies hatred or disgust toward one person, but suggests a collective group is inappropriate.....

but what about hatred towards child-abusers?

It's just to do with societal norm, and because this changes over time, who knows what else could be considered normal..... or appropriate....

i end my rant here

Good rant
____________

 

[mervvyn]

I'd say kids are off limits in some senses... although i spose you get a lot of old people whinging about "kids these days" but in a news and current affairs sense, you cant really blame kids in general and violence/antipathy to children (ie preteens especially) is probably not tolerated. I guess there are exceptions to that - corporal punishment used to be standard in schools (bring back the cane anyone?) and things like patronage (in its ancient greek sense, where older men would take boys under their wing, teach them and sometimes sodomise as well, and an acceped institution i think) as well. Basically, the times, they are always a'changin'.

 

[Trippendicular]

Good rant
____________

Good post

Personally, I think trying to restrict or impose a limit on what a news/current affairs story can include would be degenerative to the global community, as the best thing about life and humanity is diversity, as each different culture has its own ethics and morals, making it hard, and inappropriate to regulate

 

[spell check]

Good post

Personally, I think trying to restrict or impose a limit on what a news/current affairs story can include would be degenerative to the global community, as the best thing about life and humanity is diversity, as each different culture has its own ethics and morals, making it hard, and inappropriate to regulate

worst post ever

what do you mean the best thing about life and humanity is diversity? diversity causes so many problems, we'd be better off with as little of it as possible

 

[ur_inner_child]

if anyone's that interested about values varying from place to place, read about the muslim-hindu movie where the female actor now needs government protection because of one kiss in a movie.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/27/news/kiss.html

to conclude/sequel my rant, the line drawn is not whether it should or shouldn't be fluid, it IS fluid, no matter how much we try to stick to our traditional values.

 

[braindrainedAsh]

We debate this kind of stuff at uni all the time, especially in relation to journalistic ethics, confidentiality vs the public right to know, abiding by the law vs public right to know etc.

Sometimes I don't know what I think.... e.g. should journalists protect their confidential sources (which is one of the pillars of professional journalistic practice) if by maintaining this confidentiality the public right to know suffers or it interferes in the course of justice? There are so many rules and so many exceptions to the rules.... it's hard to make the call sometimes.

I'll post up the AJA (MEAA) Code of Journalistic Ethics, I think they are a fairly good guideline to what is acceptable in terms of reporting:

Respect for truth and the public's right to information are fundamental principles of journalism. Journalists describe society to itself. They convey information, ideas and opinions, a privileged role. They search, disclose, record, question, entertain, suggest and remember. They inform citizens and animate democracy. They give a practical form to freedom of expression. Many journalists work in private enterprise, but all have these public responsibilities. They scrutinise power, but also exercise it, and should be accountable. Accountability engenders trust. Without trust, journalists do not fulfil their public responsibilities. MEAA members engaged in journalism commit themselves to

Honesty
Fairness
Independence
Respect for the rights of others
1. Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis. Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply.

2. Do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics, including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family relationships, religious belief, or physical or intellectual disability.

3. Aim to attribute information to its source. Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the source’s motives and any alternative attributable source. Where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances.

4. Do not allow personal interest, or any belief, commitment, payment, gift or benefit, to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence.

5. Disclose conflicts of interest that affect, or could be seen to affect, the accuracy, fairness or independence of your journalism. Do not improperly use a journalistic position for personal gain.

6. Do not allow advertising or other commercial considerations to undermine accuracy, fairness or independence.

7. Do your utmost to ensure disclosure of any direct or indirect payment made for interviews, pictures, information or stories.

8. Use fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material. Identify yourself and your employer before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast. Never exploit a person’s vulnerability or ignorance of media practice.

9. Present pictures and sound which are true and accurate. Any manipulation likely to mislead should be disclosed.

10. Do not plagiarise.

11. Respect private grief and personal privacy. Journalists have the right to resist compulsion to intrude.

12. Do your utmost to achieve fair correction of errors.

Guidance Clause

Basic values often need interpretation and sometimes come into conflict. Ethical journalism requires conscientious decision-making in context. Only substantial advancement of the public interest or risk of substantial harm to people allows any standard to be overridden.

Does everyone think that this code of ethics is fairly reasonable? I do.... however I think that sometimes commercial interests do infringe on journo ethics.... also it depends which news outlets you are talking about.....

Even in the MEAA code of ethics there are things which are debatable.

Edit: Also, in terms of ethics, journalists are not supposed to report on bomb scares or suicides because it can incite copy cat behaviour.... what do you think of this?

 

[withoutaface]

I think that just about anything is fair game, so long as:
- opinions are expressed for what they are, and not passed off as fact.
- any statement made is backed up by reasoning.

 

[Xayma]

What I view as the line is mainly dependent upon the audience viewing it and the culture of the audience.

Reporting to adults (at an appropriate hour, eg late news, or in newspapers etc away from comics) nothing is too far, although warnings could be used the issues should still be reported.

If something is stated as fact (eg most Christians are male) then statistics should be given.

Opinion pieces should be somewhat different. Something that is likely to cause offence should be avoided (eg most women cant drive for shit) especially if a person is paying for the medium.

 

[Iron]

I dont like the idea of a line. Irreverance isnt really a bad thing...I think it's far less dangerous than creating shrines and cults to ideals and people.
Especially in terms of politics, all efforts to render it aesthetic are very dangerous--->point to Hitler and to an extent Bush in Iraq. Speaking of 'noble missions' and the unique strength of American people etc. etc. It's self serving and false.
We do things different down here and that's a good thing.

 

[Rorix]

The private provided that the private has not been made an issue by the person in question.

 

[townie]

The private provided that the private has not been made an issue by the person in question.

but what is private nowadays?

espescially for public figures? should privacy be expected where the person's private life could affect their public life (i'm talking more politicans there) or is that a discussion for another thread?

 

[braindrainedAsh]

When it comes to reporting on the private, in terms of journalism, it is usually considered only fine to report on the private when it is in the public interest.

 

[Rorix]

but what is private nowadays?

espescially for public figures? should privacy be expected where the person's private life could affect their public life (i'm talking more politicans there) or is that a discussion for another thread?

for example, this is not the journalism sense that Ash is talking about it in, but protests marching on a politicians home e.g. the recent protest at Amanda Vanstone's house. IMO it really depends on what the information is being used for e.g. mentioning that a MP has recently gone through a bitter custody dispute and making a big story out of it would be inappropriate if he/she was dealing in a trade matter, but might be relevant if he/she was supporting strong custody legislation, as long as it's done tastefully.