On 11/4/05, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Personally I agree with you Frank, but the flow of information cannot be > filtered through subjective channels or we who live in a democracy with a > free press risk all.... >
i'm not talking about censorship, cotty, i'm talking about common sense, discretion and humanity. if you don't think that the press currently filters the news, then you're living in a different world than me. in a 1/2 hour newscast choices are being made wrt every story shown - and not shown. obviously the editors who chose to run the story we're talking about decided that their ratings are more important than any damage caused to an individual's life - an individual who may well have been innocent (and indeed, in this case, was). it would have been nice if they balanced it otherwise. or, it would have been nice if the answer would have been, "we'd alienate our viewers if we run that story". so, maybe it's our fault as consumers, in the long run. but, the bottom line is that every story is "filtered through subjective channels", and the editors must take responsibility for the ramifications of what's aired. -frank -frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
