The blogosphere did a pretty good job chewing over this NYTimes story on blogs. I was left with a couple of questions though.
Katherine Seelye writes:
At the same time, some in the traditional media are growing alarmed as they watch careers being destroyed by what they see as the growing power of rampant, unedited dialogue.1. Did journalistic ethicists worry about the career prospects of people targeted by "60 minutes", "Dateline," or "20/20"?
2. Is it not hypocritical to defend Ward Churchill and then worry about "rampant, unedited dialogue"?
No comments:
Post a Comment