-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/opinion/05pubed.html 'The Public Editor: Journalistic Ideals, Human Values'
"Although word spread quickly last November among Western reporters in Afghanistan that Rohde, Ludin and their driver, Asadullah Mangal, had been snatched, The Times persuaded news organizations around the world to keep a lid on the story with a simple appeal: The kidnappers had demanded silence. “Possibly by defying them, we would be signing David’s death warrant,” said Bill Keller, the paper’s executive editor."
Hm. So if the terrorists do not make any demands about silence, it is our ethical duty to censor ourselves, as many wiser heads than mine have expounded about at length in many forums such as WikiEN-l.
But if they do make demands about silence, it is our ethical duty to... censor ourselves?
- -- gwern
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Gwern Branwengwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Hm. So if the terrorists do not make any demands about silence, it is our ethical duty to censor ourselves, as many wiser heads than mine have expounded about at length in many forums such as WikiEN-l.
But if they do make demands about silence, it is our ethical duty to... censor ourselves?
Again, the issue is presuming that it matters at all what clever censorship tactics anyone in the media does, and that these make all the difference. Clever ain't wise. The beautifully obtuse thing about this is that journalism, mass media, and the Fourth Estate are all concepts founded on illumination, enlightenment, and information. 'Sunlight is the best disinfectant,' as someone said. Turning the lights out for certain cases somehow means something equivalent to turning them on?
-Stevertigo
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 7:13 PM, stevertigostvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Gwern Branwengwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Hm. So if the terrorists do not make any demands about silence, it is our ethical duty to censor ourselves, as many wiser heads than mine have expounded about at length in many forums such as WikiEN-l.
There was a more subtlely blunt point here - one that I glanced over: That the real reason for the blackout had nothing to do with any sophisticated tactics for lowering Rohde's profile, but rather it was to comply with kidnapper demands. Is that correct?
Nice.
-Stevertigo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:18 PM, stevertigo wrote:
There was a more subtlely blunt point here - one that I glanced over: That the real reason for the blackout had nothing to do with any sophisticated tactics for lowering Rohde's profile, but rather it was to comply with kidnapper demands. Is that correct?
Nice.
Quite; hence the subject. (I'm sure we all remember the phrase 'if you do X, [[the terrorists have won]].' Well, we did X.)
More generally, my point is that the reasoning offered for the censorship is intellectually bankrupt. Before they knew that silence was part of the terrorists' demands, people were falling all over themselves to justify it as some sort of heroic action ('silence will... err, somehow help out negotiations or soothe those savage beasts!'); but now that the facts of the matter turn out to be opposite, they will no doubt seize on the new justification to maintain their position ('if we don't follow their demands, they may kill the hostage!').
They are like the stereotypical Panglossian/religious person, upon hearing a child was barely saved from being run over - 'Ah, surely that is a miracle! God is great!' - but when they hear the child was in actuality run over and the rumor incorrect - 'Ah, surely that is part of God's awesome plan! God is great!'
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Gwern Branwengwern0@gmail.com wrote:
More generally, my point is that the reasoning offered for the censorship is intellectually bankrupt.
Well let's not attribute to malice what better can be ascribed to corporate do-gooderness. Obviously, if the NYT, in presenting themselves to media, represented their case as being a tactic rather than simply a gesture of compliance, then they now have a little issue of journalistic integrity with everyone they dealt with.
I would have said "corporate integrity," but everyone would easily figure out that was a pun.
-Stevertigo
2009/7/7 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Well let's not attribute to malice what better can be ascribed to corporate do-gooderness. Obviously, if the NYT, in presenting themselves to media, represented their case as being a tactic rather than simply a gesture of compliance, then they now have a little issue of journalistic integrity with everyone they dealt with.
There is also the same issue for those involved on the on wikipedia censorship. How much of this did they know? What was the wording of the request Jimbo received?
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:10 PM, genigeniice@gmail.com wrote:
There is also the same issue for those involved on the on wikipedia censorship. How much of this did they know? What was the wording of the request Jimbo received?
The main issue now for all involved is saving face. This is an important concept for those of us who have a public face and don't want egg on it.
The best part of all this is, aside from Rohde and company managing to extend their stays on Earth, is that we are all basically off the hook as far as "journalistic ethics" go anyway - we're an "encyclopedia."
-Stevertigo
stevertigo wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Gwern Branwengwern0@gmail.com wrote:
More generally, my point is that the reasoning offered for the censorship is intellectually bankrupt.
Well let's not attribute to malice what better can be ascribed to corporate do-gooderness. Obviously, if the NYT, in presenting themselves to media, represented their case as being a tactic rather than simply a gesture of compliance, then they now have a little issue of journalistic integrity with everyone they dealt with.
I would have said "corporate integrity," but everyone would easily figure out that was a pun.
Not all puns are oxymorons.
Ec
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:39 PM, Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
I would have said "corporate integrity," but everyone would easily figure out that was a pun.
Not all puns are oxymorons.
Hence the dilemma of corporate media. Fortunately for us, we decided long ago to transcend corporate and closed-source concepts entirely.
-Stevertigo
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, stevertigo wrote:
More generally, my point is that the reasoning offered for the censorship is intellectually bankrupt.
Well let's not attribute to malice what better can be ascribed to corporate do-gooderness. Obviously, if the NYT, in presenting themselves to media, represented their case as being a tactic rather than simply a gesture of compliance, then they now have a little issue of journalistic integrity with everyone they dealt with.
That gets back to something I notied a while earlier:
Letting the newspaper decide that the harm done by suppressing information is less than the benefit of helping the prisoner survive, when the prisoner is a newspaper reporter, *is a conflict of interest*. We can't rely on the New York Times to make an unbiased, fairly presented, argument for weighing the two options when they're trying to protect one of their own reporters.
It's not just the Times' fault for not having the journalistic integrity to describe the situation accurately, it's ours for trusting them. We *shouldn't* trust someone with a conflict of interest. The fact that we did so shows that we don't have a good enough grasp on what it means to have a conflict of interest.
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Ken Arromdeearromdee@rahul.net wrote:
It's not just the Times' fault for not having the journalistic integrity to describe the situation accurately, it's ours for trusting them. We *shouldn't* trust someone with a conflict of interest. The fact that we did so shows that we don't have a good enough grasp on what it means to have a conflict of interest.
Well to be fair, the concept of saving the human life is compelling - no less so if its someone known personally. And eagerly assisting in that life-saving should also be understood as a compelling concept.
The problems then lie in the intersection between journalism and the real-world, and not just within professional journalism itself -- which to a certain degree Wikipedia is included. How else does the real world impose upon journalism? To what extent is Wikipedia founded in journalistic concepts, and is thus beholden to its principles? I've mentioned before how NPOV is really just principled journalistic objectivity in a repackaged for a more dynamic environment.
-Steve
Previous post correction diff:
-saving the human life +saving human life -objectivity in a repackaged for a +objectivity repackaged for a +or+objectivity in a repackaged form..
-S
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, stevertigo wrote:
It's not just the Times' fault for not having the journalistic integrity to describe the situation accurately, it's ours for trusting them. We *shouldn't* trust someone with a conflict of interest. The fact that we did so shows that we don't have a good enough grasp on what it means to have a conflict of interest.
Well to be fair, the concept of saving the human life is compelling - no less so if its someone known personally. And eagerly assisting in that life-saving should also be understood as a compelling concept.
The claim that we shouldn't have trusted wasn't "this helps save a human life", but "the tradeoff is good". The case for *that* was much less compelling, and much more likely to be affected by a conflict of interest.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Ken Arromdeearromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, stevertigo wrote:
It's not just the Times' fault for not having the journalistic integrity...
Well to be fair, the concept of saving the human life is compelling...
Meta note: Please be careful to give accurate attribution to posted comments. The above makes it look like I said "It's not just the Times' fault..." when my comment begins at "Well to be fair..." The problem is bi-dualistic: 1) whoever did write something isn't credited/faulted, and 2) whoever didn't write something is credited/faulted.
Regards, Steven
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Ken Arromdeearromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, stevertigo wrote:
More generally, my point is that the reasoning offered for the censorship is intellectually bankrupt.
Well let's not attribute to malice what better can be ascribed to corporate do-gooderness. Obviously, if the NYT, in presenting themselves to media, represented their case as being a tactic rather than simply a gesture of compliance, then they now have a little issue of journalistic integrity with everyone they dealt with.
That gets back to something I notied a while earlier:
Letting the newspaper decide that the harm done by suppressing information is less than the benefit of helping the prisoner survive, when the prisoner is a newspaper reporter, *is a conflict of interest*. We can't rely on the New York Times to make an unbiased, fairly presented, argument for weighing the two options when they're trying to protect one of their own reporters.
It's not just the Times' fault for not having the journalistic integrity to describe the situation accurately, it's ours for trusting them. We *shouldn't* trust someone with a conflict of interest. The fact that we did so shows that we don't have a good enough grasp on what it means to have a conflict of interest.
Some things are not easily describable and modelable in the in-wiki mental model and process.
We do badly enough on breaking news without introducing "our coverage may put a life at risk" as an additional complication.
We are not currently prepared to be entirely community-wide consensusly responsible and ethical and consistent about some news stories which are actively evolving. We're not supposed to be doing that anyways. We're an encyclopedia (WP, at least), not a news source. We do other things badly. Applying our "build an encyclopedia" logic, ethics, structure, consensus to other types of information may work particularly badly.
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM, George Herbertgeorge.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Some things are not easily describable and modelable in the in-wiki mental model and process.
Things that are not "describable and modelable in the in-wiki" but are so in the private news org model? Hm. Pay, danger, and reputation first come to mind.
We are not currently prepared to be entirely community-wide consensusly responsible and ethical and consistent about some news stories which are actively evolving. We're not supposed to be doing that anyways. We're an encyclopedia (WP, at least), not a news source. Applying our "build an encyclopedia" logic, ethics, structure, consensus to other types of information may work particularly badly.
Well news orgs, aside from a few things, are doing it mostly right. Wikinews didn't set out to be a news org at first, and it still isn't, for the simple reason that adding a little Hawaiian word (with very non-English phonosemantics) to the front of whatever English word/concept does not mean something real will come out of it.
We do other things badly.
And we are good at those.
Stevertigo
"You are a light.. the calm in the day"
On 07/07/2009, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Hm. So if the terrorists do not make any demands about silence, it is our ethical duty to censor ourselves, as many wiser heads than mine have expounded about at length in many forums such as WikiEN-l.
Probably. Humans don't handle low risk, high fatality situations where they have no control (terrorism, some trace chemicals in food) very well on the whole; they like high risk, high fatality situations where they have the illusion of some control (e.g. smoking, driving) a lot more. If the press neglected to mention terrorist activities, there would be a lot fewer, because there would be no point.
But if they do make demands about silence, it is our ethical duty to... censor ourselves?
Yeah, why not? Just because your enemy want something to happen, doesn't mean you don't want it as well. The enemy probably don't want a planet killing asteroid to hit the Earth either; you shouldn't take the contrary position just because of that ;-)
Not everything is a zero sum game. Just because somebody loses, doesn't mean somebody gains, in lots of situations, everybody loses or everybody wins.
gwern
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Ian Woollard wrote:
But if they do make demands about silence, it is our ethical duty to... censor ourselves?
Yeah, why not? Just because your enemy want something to happen, doesn't mean you don't want it as well.
But it has some negative effects that they don't care about and we do.
For instance, modifying our articles when a hostage is threatened encourages other terrorists to take hostages. How long until some terrorist demands that we alter our Jenin article to say that Israel committed a massacre, or else they start executing hostages, now that we've demonstrated that we can be coerced in that way?
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Ian Woollard wrote:
But if they do make demands about silence, it is our ethical duty to... censor ourselves?
Yeah, why not? Just because your enemy want something to happen, doesn't mean you don't want it as well.
But it has some negative effects that they don't care about and we do.
For instance, modifying our articles when a hostage is threatened encourages other terrorists to take hostages. How long until some terrorist demands that we alter our Jenin article to say that Israel committed a massacre, or else they start executing hostages, now that we've demonstrated that we can be coerced in that way?
I have a hard time believing you honestly see that as even a remote possibility. In the extraordinarily unlikely case that a psychotic terrorist takes someone hostage to effect a short term change in a *Wikipedia article*, I doubt our prior response to such pressure will figure significantly in his/her decision process.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Nathannawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Ian Woollard wrote:
But if they do make demands about silence, it is our ethical duty to... censor ourselves?
Yeah, why not? Just because your enemy want something to happen, doesn't mean you don't want it as well.
But it has some negative effects that they don't care about and we do.
For instance, modifying our articles when a hostage is threatened encourages other terrorists to take hostages. How long until some terrorist demands that we alter our Jenin article to say that Israel committed a massacre, or else they start executing hostages, now that we've demonstrated that we can be coerced in that way?
I have a hard time believing you honestly see that as even a remote possibility. In the extraordinarily unlikely case that a psychotic terrorist takes someone hostage to effect a short term change in a *Wikipedia article*, I doubt our prior response to such pressure will figure significantly in his/her decision process.
I see where Ken is coming from on this, but there's not a bright line.
One does not immediately do exactly the opposite of what a terrorist demands be done, in order to frustrate the value of them issuing demands completely. One example might be, for instance, extrajudicially executing prisoners that terrorists demand to be released.
Doing what terrorists demand, in total, encourages them. Same with criminals. But when lives are at stake there is usually a large grey area of various levels of partial cooperation that increases the odds of successful survival of the victims. In that large grey area are usually large swaths of cooperation that nobody really feels are unethical (i.e., holding discussions / negotiations with the terrorist or criminal), large swaths which are commonly done but sometimes some people object to (news blackouts, etc), some which are commonly done but feel like giving in (paying ransom).
A news blackout, to me, seems much less ambiguous and much less giving in than paying ransom. We do not impose legal or social penalties against families or companies that pay ransoms. Objecting strongly to news blackouts, without objecting strongly to ransoms, seems somewhat contradictory. Even though ransoms encourage more kidnappings, they're seen as necessary to save human life. Even though they directly enrich the criminal or terrorist.
2009/7/8 George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com:
I see where Ken is coming from on this, but there's not a bright line.
One does not immediately do exactly the opposite of what a terrorist demands be done, in order to frustrate the value of them issuing demands completely. One example might be, for instance, extrajudicially executing prisoners that terrorists demand to be released.
I feel we could also mention the notorious situation of a terrorist faction endorsing one political candidate over another, as I believe happened quite prominently recently!
Doing what terrorists demand, in total, encourages them. Same with criminals. But when lives are at stake there is usually a large grey area of various levels of partial cooperation that increases the odds of successful survival of the victims. In that large grey area are usually large swaths of cooperation that nobody really feels are unethical (i.e., holding discussions / negotiations with the terrorist or criminal), large swaths which are commonly done but sometimes some people object to (news blackouts, etc), some which are commonly done but feel like giving in (paying ransom).
Mmm.
If someone takes a hostage and demands that you not report they've taken the hostage, you may well do that because it's not the *point* of their demands - we figure they're going to ask for a million dollars and a plane to somewhere unpleasant eventually - and it gets treated by everyone involved as an integral part of the hostage-taking to some degree. (In cases like this, the ethical issue then becomes to what extent people should be trying to ensure that others comply with that process, and how they should represent it to them...)
If they take a hostage and demands you not report something entirely unrelated to the hostage-taking, it escalates into a demand in its own right, something to be treated as such, and responded to appropriately. But it's really not the same as something which is part and parcel of the "process".
There's an important distinction here - I'm afraid I might not be getting it across very well, but I think it holds. The information suppressed here pertained only "to itself", and I find it hard to consider a situation where that wouldn't be the case *and* we wouldn't treat it as something to be rejected.
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, George Herbert wrote:
A news blackout, to me, seems much less ambiguous and much less giving in than paying ransom. We do not impose legal or social penalties against families or companies that pay ransoms.
Well, some are trying: http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFL451214120090704