on 6/5/07 2:16 PM, William Pietri at william@scissor.com wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 6/5/07 9:19 AM, William Pietri at william@scissor.com wrote:
That's not to say that we shouldn't suppress facts for moral purposes. There are good arguments for it.
This is where you lost me, William. What do you mean?
Sorry. I was trying to avoid pointing too directly at the incidents that triggered my thinking, as I didn't just want to dredge them up for yet another round. I was thinking of the BADSITES foofaraw and some recent BLP excitements, including Little Fatty and Bus Uncle. But I've seen it elsewhere. I wasn't thinking of things like home addresses; I think that's directory fodder, not encyclopedic material.
I'm not saying I agree with the people who are saying we should suppress published newsworthy facts, like the names of the Bus Uncle characters, or the bio we have on Daniel Brandt. I'm not saying I disagree, either, as they have some excellent points.
I'm just saying that making the moral choices on behalf of our readers rather than leaving it up to them makes me nervous, both because I'm not sure where it will end and because I fear it will be the source of unending disagreement.
Is that helpful?
Yes it is, thank you, William. Actually, I was focused on the use of the phrase "moral choices". I, personally, would use the phrase "ethical choices"; I believe it carries with it a lot less incendiary baggage.
Marc