<<In a message dated 12/28/2008 7:52:44 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, scream@datascreamer.com writes:
Is it really, *our duty* to report it? And at what cost to a living person? I think that for those marginally notable, an opt out is not an "extreme step", not as extreme as my first suggestion.
I'll agree, that it is their life, and their choice to make it public. But must we be the agents of their perpetual embarrassment? Most especially, if their articles are frequent targets of hatcheting and libel. Most especially, if the notability is 'marginal'.>>
First, are you saying that all journalists are unethical and immoral? Secondly, I agree that an opt-out for the "marginally notable" is not as extreme as an opt-out for everybody. Third, it's not an issue that we *must* be that agent "of their perpetual embarrassment", but only that we *can*. Once you allow can, you allow *an* editor, but not necessarily *all* editors, to be so. I would submit, however, that deliberately ignoring or whitewashing a bio, because we don't want to "embarrass" a subject, seems fairly opposed to our supposed purpose. Which is, to write a biography, not a hagiography.
Fourthly, whether an article is a frequent target of libel is not material, to how we write it.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolc...)