On 6/7/07, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We're really better off if we try not to apply
moral judgments to
content when we don't have to. This falls under that. Our current
system is more than sufficient.
My opinion? We don't get a choice. Our sources make moral judgements
and work within systems of professional ethics. We have to have our
own, or else we're just parroting their priorities.
The most accessible, pervasive information sources on the planet have
as their priority, for the most part, the maximization of audience
share and the selling of half page ads for furniture, underwears and
slimming aids. Those that are in competition to sell advertising
space feel they have little choice but to serve up something that will
push up sales and generate advertising revenue.
They have their ethical systems, which enable them to do pretty good
work despite the pressure to produce stuff that's, well, less than
good. Gossip about pop stars is kept within reasonable bounds,
Prurience is limited. But titillation is still a big seller so
sensationalism is hard to keep at bay.
Political considerations are also a problem. News sources might adopt
a detached, unworldly tone on politics, but press office conditions
enable those in political power to influence which subjects they
discuss--on pain of exclusion from background briefings and other
privileged access. Our sources are biased, even though they struggle
to avoid this.
Those are our sources. As Wikipedians, intending to produce an
encyclopedia, we have to choose how we process this news and current
affairs source--which is so prevalent as to be like a veritable fire
hose compared to other informational sources. We have no choice. We
must have an ethical framework within which to handle this
information.