5 ms·
If this hypothetical political candidate is saying something that's not true (or is disputed), and news station B just runs a raw video of their speech, you cou
by isbadawi 6y ago
If this hypothetical political candidate is saying something that's not true (or is disputed), and news station B just runs a raw video of their speech, you could argue it's favoring that candidate by allowing their message to spread without providing the appropriate context.
- 29athrowaway 6y agoIt is the duty of each citizen to develop an informed opinion about each candidate. Rights = Duties Right to vote = Duty to make an informed opinion and vote wisely. Freedom of the press = Duty to inform events with journalistic integrity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standard... An important part of journalistic integrity is impartiality. Any news station taking sides is unethical and you should stop watching it.
- isbadawi 6y agoBut in this scenario, the news station is not providing enough information for the citizen to develop an informed opinion. I guess there's room for a service like that that just has raw video (as one element of a wider media ecosystem), but it's also valuable for the news to actually explain events in a larger context.