My point is that in so many high-profile crimes, especially dreadful mass shootings, there can quickly come a sort of hysteria that takes over as lawyers and people jump into the fray. Victims are extremely vulnerable, the media converges on the town, there is understandable anger, rage even....this has happened so many times before, it is sadly predictable. I'm not pointing fingers. I'm talking about all of us.
Very well said and very eloquently said. And yes, you are talking about all of us. This, "all of us", however, should be balanced with:
For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required," Luke 12:48
When applied to this situation, I believe that this scripture quote means that professional journalists, have an extra obligation in regards to ethics. I think it is good to contrast between the ethics of CNN with the ethics of the Web Sleuths staff:
CNN ethics "ethics": Broadcast unsupported speculation about a racist motive in a very inflammatory case. Mute information that their original broadcasts were in accurate in regards to the race of the murderer and motives in a follow on story. Imply that the fault of any discrepancy is with the police.
Web Sleuth ethics (Jayme Closs double homicide / kidnapping): No- on this forum, you cannot post un-supported speculation about racist motives. In particular, you cannot speculate that the attack was committed by Islamic fundamentalists targeting whites and/or Christians females. You also can not make un-suppported speculations that the attack was performed hispanics / MS-13.
My guess is that CNN has been given much more than Websleuths staff. But, who displays higher ethics?
Last edited: