Needless, heedless, wanton and deliberate injury of the sort inflicted by Life's picture story is not an essential instrument of responsible journalism.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It's a responsibility of the writer to get the reader out of the story somehow.
I don't think there's any reason in journalism not to approach stories we cover with humility, empathy, compassion, and intellectual openness. I mean, I think those are just important human traits. I don't think that precludes scrutiny, negativity, where it's appropriate.
Journalism is not just a cause, it's also a wacky profession.
There are no journalistic ethics that transcend the value of human life. There are none. In a situation where you can save a human life, you must. There isn't any conflict in my mind.
Some of the most important stories don't lend themselves to television treatment.
Everybody is an expert on one thing - that's what I learned in my high school journalism class - and that's, of course, his own life. And everybody deserves to live and have his story told. And if it doesn't seem like an interesting story, then that's the failure of the listener, or the journalist who retells it badly.
Whenever you're telling a story about true-life events and about real people, there's a tremendous responsibility-slash-burden to get it right.
The journalistic code of ethics governing the broadcasts requires that opposing views be presented, and that journalists' personal opinions or judgments be left out of factual reporting.
Journalism without a moral position is impossible. Every journalist is a moralist. It's absolutely unavoidable.
Journalism is irrepressible. It can't be taken away.