When is this irresponsibility going to end?

[gina2000]

LOL! And since when did all of us qualify as "conservatives"?

 

[EROS]

Originally posted by gina2000
LOL! And since when did all of us qualify as "conservatives"?

Just "most" of the DIS, Gina . As the house devil you may warrant an exclusion ............

 

[snoopy]

So glad you got it Saffron and crb.

You have to admit, my dear EROS, you do tend to be a wee bit dramatic on these type of posts. Which sends me into fits of laughter. Sorry.

I am not asking for censorship, really, I'm not. I just don't need to see 14 different analysts on the TV trying to decipher the meaning of a tarot card.

 

[gina2000]

Labels, labels, labels!

I don't think the ACLU likes labels!

Do you?

 

[EROS]

Originally posted by snoopy

You have to admit, my dear EROS, you do tend to be a wee bit dramatic on these type of posts. Which sends me into fits of laughter. Sorry.

Snoopy, in your capacity as one of the true YELLOW DOGS of the DIS, I may be able to offer you an exclusion as well . Any woman who has at one time or another been attracted to WILD BILL may be a censor who is trying to "break out" ........

 

[AirForceRocks]

I think Chief Moose said it best this morning - reporters and TV anchorpersons are not the ones that should be making decisions about which evidence is important enough to keep secret and which evidence can be released to the public. A little common sense goes a long way in situations such as this.

And contrary to what many people believe, the public does not have a "right" to know every little bit of evidence or information that investigators gather.

 

[EROS]

Perhaps investigators, like the White House, should do a better job at preventing "leaks" rather than berating our Free Press .............

 

[snoopy]

LOL EROS, I'll tell you who I would have liked to censor back in his day was that awful Kenneth Starr.

Going after my boy Bill like that was just creepy, imo.

 

[Deb in IA]

OK, I'll chime in here as well.

Now, EROS, dear, you KNOW that I too am opposed to CENSORSHIP. I am just back from a visit to China, and I can't help but feel saddened by the totalitarian regime and its stranglehold on ANY RELEASE of news that may be a negative reflection on the government.

BUT, I would also argue that there is a difference between CENSORSHIP and RESTRAINT. After all, in many cases of sexual assults, and identity of the victim is NOT published by the media. And certainly in our line of work, there are many, many areas involving patient confidentiality that require us not to divulge information. In fact, to do so would most certainly get us fired and our licenses to practice medicine revoked.

Now, you would not call that censorship, would you?

 

[gina2000]

OMG! Now I am REALLY ROTFLMAO!


The women of the DIS strike back!

 

[PammyK]

Unfortunately, most media outlets are more worried about ratings than responsibility. I am all for freedom of the press; however, the media has corrupted the ideal of a free press, IMO. As was said before, freedom of the press does not preclude responsibility. It isn't about censorship - it is about doing the responsible thing. Things such as holding a story to protect the integrity of an ongoing police investigation or allowing a grief-stricken family some privacy to deal with a tragedy are not signs of censorship but rather a sign of respect and responsibility.

Of course, the public is also to blame. As a society we demand instant gratification and also have a voyeuristic streak that helps the media justify irresponsible reporting under the guise of "freedom of the press" and "giving the public what they want." If we don't like the way the media is handling their job, we have a responsibility to let them know by not watching or reading their news reports and by calling or writing the editors to tell them our opinions.

 

[abaldacci]

My understanding is..... To keep this in the news is a good thing he is getting his jollies and no more killings.Because he is hi on it being in the news. If the police didn't want this stuff out they would not keep taking to the press.

 

[captin fink]

quote from abaldacci
My understanding is..... To keep this in the news is a good thing he is getting his jollies and no more killings.Because he is hi on it being in the news.

Interesting concept. There are two problems with this theory IMHO. 1 If the person doing this is getting off on the attention wouldn’t he be more compelled to strike again so as to gain even more airtime? 2. If indeed he is getting hi on the coverage wouldn’t want to increase his hi by shooting more people?

Eros again you amaze me with your comparisons. Watergate?

It has been stated quite well here already, thier is deference between Responsibility and Censorship of the press.

 

[EROS]

DEB, you and I both censor a great deal of information as doctors. However, don't forget that we're MANDATED to do so by LAW . We're both civilly and legally liable if we breach patient-physician confidentiality.

The PRESS is NOT under a similiar obligation. Frankly, I feel that the PRESS is "used" a great deal by politicians and the Police when "leaks" occur. Perhaps there is a role for RESTRAINT, but who is to make that determination??????................. Deb in IA, CRB#33, Dan Murphy,EROS, the DIS Censors?????.............all of these parties may feel that there are different degrees of "restraint" which are necessary. Get my drift????????.........Determination of what the PRESS "should" publish is highly subjective .......

 

[AirForceRocks]

There is no way to absolutely stop leaks. As long as individuals are working on the case, there will be access to information that shouldn't be shared with the media. And, there will be people that will share the information even though they know they shouldn't. That doesn't mean that the press has to print it, especially when they knew that the police didn't want the info released.

I was listening to Gordon Peterson give a radio interview last night. Mr. Peterson is the dean of DC local TV anchors, and holds some supervisory position (I didn't hear the official title) at Channel 9. He said he knew that the police would be unhappy with the release of the information, but that Channel 9 decided to do it anyway. He even commented that he told the reporter that broke the story (Buchanan?) that he had better not speed on the way home, because he surely wouldn't want to be stopped by the police after breaking the story.

Mr. Peterson then proceeded to talk about two other "scoops" that Channel 9 has had in relation to the sniper case. If I had any doubts before about why Channel 9 aired the info, I didn't after the radio interview. It was about being first to the punch, regardless of the effects it might have on the investigation.

Sorry, but the lives of any future victims trumps the public's right to know (as if that really existed), and it also trumps Channel 9's right to the scoop.

 

[gina2000]

Originally posted by EROS
DEB, you and I both censor a great deal of information as doctors. However, don't forget that we're MANDATED to do so by LAW . We're both civilly and legally liable if we breach patient-physician confidentiality.

Interesting, EROS, most interesting. Even as we speak, insurance companies and corporations are trying to change that. They feel that full disclosure should be allowed so they can determine risk when hiring or covering a person.

IS IT THEIR RIGHT TO KNOW?


I don't believe in censoring. But you've raised an interesting thought in my mind. Why do we protect people? When does it become invasive? Using a preferred customer card gathers information. So does using EZ Pass on a highway as well as a million other information gathering methods used by corporations. A lot of this information is used as well as sold to the highest bidder. When does it become "crossing the line"?

WHEN DOES THE RIGHT TO KNOW SUPERCEDE THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY?


Any takers?

 

[danacara]

As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather have too much information than not enough; I'd rather have a free press that occasionally divulges too much than divulges too little; I'd rather have newspeople who divulge everything they know than newspeople who fold under the weight of pressure.

If you don't want to know the news - don't watch the channel. You have the freedom and responsibility to tune yourself out if it bothers you that much. The news channel is *not* your keeper.

 

[AirForceRocks]

If you don't want to know the news - don't watch the channel. You have the freedom and responsibility to tune yourself out if it bothers you that much.

It has nothing to do with what anyone wants to know. It has to do with releasing information when doing so can and does hamper the investigation.

 

[Lanshark]

CRB

I couldn't agree with you more. It is also showing anyone around the world that is watching, that a lone person with a hi-powered rifle can terrorize the entire country.

Of course people need to be informed as to what is happening but the media is doing exactly what this nutcase wants them to do. Report the facts as they are officially released and stop all of the commentary and speculation. If something is leaked that has not gone through official channels then be more concerned with handling it responsibly then with getting the scoop.

If we announce we are doing geographic profiling to determine where the shooter may reside then you have alerted the shooter. He may change his pattern thus making the profiling ineffective.

Personally, I am a lot more concerned that they catch this person then I am with the medias first amendment rights. At some point responsible reporting needs to enter in to this.

 

[CRB#33]

Believe me Danacara, I have turned the tv off. It's not me I'm worried about. I'm worried about the next child that gets killed because this wacko knows where the investigation is going. There is no freedom in the world that is worth the life of a child.

Of course, we must protect these freedoms. Until our child is killed. Until the press is camped out on our font doorstep. It then becomes personal. Maybe if we made it personal before it actually hit home, we would be less tolerant of this irresponsibility.

Gina-we live in a high tech society. Information is gathered about us every time one of these magnetic strips with our social security number gets plugged into a computer.

I find it awful that the Right to Know is used by corporations who are in it for the bottom line--the almighty dollar. Somehow and I don't have the answers, peoples needs to be protected in the case of a medical problem must superceed the corporations right to turn a huge profit.

As far as a right to privacy--that seems to be disappearing quickly. Even the press says that they can print and say what they want--to heck with anyone's privacy. Again, I'll state that so many of us think that is just their right. Until it hits home.