On 13 December 2011 11:57, Venky TV <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm a little confused. If the logic of giving people what they want > to pay for is "grievously mistaken", I guess you are suggesting people > should instead be given what they "need" (and I will not, at the > moment, split hairs about who gets to define what this need is). >
Perhaps an allegory that Cheeni made and never took the idea to completion should be used here. So a doctor is allowed to prescribe a pill which has better taste, but not as effective compared to another because a patient doesn't like it? Perhaps, if most patients vomit out the not so good tasting drug consistently after taking it. Is it OK for him/her to prescribe a drug that has side-effects because it gives the clinic/hospital he works for gets higher margins? Perhaps, if the side-effects are minor or can be alleviated through another drug which in turn doesn't cause other side effects. Broad spectrum antibiotics come to mind which change the levels of gut flora, prescribed not always for the specific cases it was meant for. I can't imagine the ethics and morals of the journalistic profession not being similar to those of the medical, in principle at least. 'It costs money' is not the only argument here. > So, how is this going to be achieved? By -uh- censoring the ToI's of > the world? > -uh- Yes. The independence as well as the ethics and morals of journalism should be constitutionally protected/enforced legally or through a professional body. Does that clear up the confusion or were you confused about something else? > > Venky (the Second). > >
