Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]BD.. the reference to Jerry was the issue of manipulation, and an example of what can be done with wet a chemical darkroom. Nothing specifically to do with the issue at hand. The issue of my argument is that I do believe that journalists are biased. Photojournalists are biased. Media is biased. Standards? I think the bias of the media is a very important issue. Pure ethics, of which I believe you do believe in, is just a figment of the imagination of the actual workings of the media but the media porport it as all important. The "story" is all important. Should pure ethics be the norm? yes, but it does not and will not. Media's accepted job is to convey a statement or idea. They do it through biased reporting. The guy in question conveyed a statement. Ethically, I see no problem in what he did, other than to break the papers' rules. Fired? yes, I agreed. Frank Filippone red735i@earthlink.net I'm beginning to think that the reason you either don't get this, or want to argue about it, is that you are so convinced that all media, and all journalists, are such lying scum that you are unable to process the idea that there are standards, and that people get fired for violating them. And if that's the case, this discussion is pointless. ;-) B. D. - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html