On 13 December 2011 19:31, Venky TV <[email protected]> wrote: > On 13 December 2011 15:45, Kiran K Karthikeyan > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 13 December 2011 11:57, Venky TV <[email protected]> wrote: > Bringing in the only point I was trying to make of people not wanting > to pay for what *might* be good for them, I assume you expect doctors > to chase down every body over 50 and give them colonoscopies for free, > irrespective of whether the "patients" want the treatment or not? >
Uh-no. In my mind they're doing their job well if they treat those who do come to them. Similarly, nobody who doesn't want to read a newspaper can be well informed regardless of how well journos do their job. > > >> 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? > > Ah, so you protect the freedom of the press by censoring the > newspapers you figure are bad for society. That *does* clear things > up, yes. > Censoring is perhaps the wrong word, I admit. But a report that misrepresents/omits facts to swing opinons, etc. should bar the journalist from the press association and make sure nothing he or she writes is published again. Professional ethics should be enforced somewhere, or we wait till a country of more than a billion wisen up and stop drinking the kool aid. Don't know about you, but its pretty clear to me its not happening within my lifetime. There are only two countries with populations of that size with a similar level of economic and social disparity. Take your pick. Kiran
