Conquer Club

The press has always had a bit of a bent towards insinuating the worst of people, every other 60 Minutes/Dateline/48 Hours type show includes some sort of insinuation that a person exonerated by the courts or was never charged somehow got away with murder.

That sort of sensationalism sells of course, and arguably it does lead to some justice for incidents that could have otherwise be swept under the rug, such as the Cosby incidents or the ongoing Laquan McDonald case. still, many lives are permanently ruined by the news jumping the gun and being ever so eager to plaster a suspects face up on TV far before trial or even formal charges. People placed prematurely before the court of public opinion have lose jobs, been assaulted, driven to suicide, and even murdered.

So how do we balance privacy and freedom of the press? Does the public have a right to "breaking news" moment by moment, whether it leads anywhere or not? Does an arrested person have a right to keep their name and face private from the media?

/ wrote:The press has always had a bit of a bent towards insinuating the worst of people, every other 60 Minutes/Dateline/48 Hours type show includes some sort of insinuation that a person exonerated by the courts or was never charged somehow got away with murder.

That sort of sensationalism sells of course, and arguably it does lead to some justice for incidents that could have otherwise be swept under the rug, such as the Cosby incidents or the ongoing Laquan McDonald case. still, many lives are permanently ruined by the news jumping the gun and being ever so eager to plaster a suspects face up on TV far before trial or even formal charges. People placed prematurely before the court of public opinion have lose jobs, been assaulted, driven to suicide, and even murdered.

So how do we balance privacy and freedom of the press? Does the public have a right to "breaking news" moment by moment, whether it leads anywhere or not? Does an arrested person have a right to keep their name and face private from the media?

Indeed, a prime example would be the media's use of the word "illegal" to describe people who are innocent under law.

/ wrote:The press has always had a bit of a bent towards insinuating the worst of people, every other 60 Minutes/Dateline/48 Hours type show includes some sort of insinuation that a person exonerated by the courts or was never charged somehow got away with murder.

That sort of sensationalism sells of course, and arguably it does lead to some justice for incidents that could have otherwise be swept under the rug, such as the Cosby incidents or the ongoing Laquan McDonald case. still, many lives are permanently ruined by the news jumping the gun and being ever so eager to plaster a suspects face up on TV far before trial or even formal charges. People placed prematurely before the court of public opinion have lose jobs, been assaulted, driven to suicide, and even murdered.

So how do we balance privacy and freedom of the press? Does the public have a right to "breaking news" moment by moment, whether it leads anywhere or not? Does an arrested person have a right to keep their name and face private from the media?

Embarrassingly, I don't know the answer, but isn't there a defamation or libel suit available to the general public who are falsely accused by the media? If there is, I think many would say "those people have a remedy - sue!" the result being if everyone sues, maybe those false accusations stop.

Don said it best

thegreekdog wrote:

/ wrote:The press has always had a bit of a bent towards insinuating the worst of people, every other 60 Minutes/Dateline/48 Hours type show includes some sort of insinuation that a person exonerated by the courts or was never charged somehow got away with murder.

That sort of sensationalism sells of course, and arguably it does lead to some justice for incidents that could have otherwise be swept under the rug, such as the Cosby incidents or the ongoing Laquan McDonald case. still, many lives are permanently ruined by the news jumping the gun and being ever so eager to plaster a suspects face up on TV far before trial or even formal charges. People placed prematurely before the court of public opinion have lose jobs, been assaulted, driven to suicide, and even murdered.

So how do we balance privacy and freedom of the press? Does the public have a right to "breaking news" moment by moment, whether it leads anywhere or not? Does an arrested person have a right to keep their name and face private from the media?

Embarrassingly, I don't know the answer, but isn't there a defamation or libel suit available to the general public who are falsely accused by the media? If there is, I think many would say "those people have a remedy - sue!" the result being if everyone sues, maybe those false accusations stop.

The press cover their ass with weasel words like "allegedly". How to accuse someone without accusing someone.

But Brutus was an honourable man....

KoolBak wrote:Don said it best

Exactly right koolback, I don't usually support gifs as a valid response but this hit the Mark.

DoomYoshi wrote:This is why vigilantism is the only legitimate form of policing. Without local militias and warlords, your society just descends into chaos.

Pfft you kidding? Laws and police are in place for a reason,but you don't like them then get them LEGALLY changed.

jgordon1111 wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:This is why vigilantism is the only legitimate form of policing. Without local militias and warlords, your society just descends into chaos.

Pfft you kidding? Laws and police are in place for a reason,but you don't like them then get them LEGALLY changed.

It wasn't too long ago that an investigation into the London police found then to be institutionally racist

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

/ wrote:The press has always had a bit of a bent towards insinuating the worst of people, every other 60 Minutes/Dateline/48 Hours type show includes some sort of insinuation that a person exonerated by the courts or was never charged somehow got away with murder.

That sort of sensationalism sells of course, and arguably it does lead to some justice for incidents that could have otherwise be swept under the rug, such as the Cosby incidents or the ongoing Laquan McDonald case. still, many lives are permanently ruined by the news jumping the gun and being ever so eager to plaster a suspects face up on TV far before trial or even formal charges. People placed prematurely before the court of public opinion have lose jobs, been assaulted, driven to suicide, and even murdered.

So how do we balance privacy and freedom of the press? Does the public have a right to "breaking news" moment by moment, whether it leads anywhere or not? Does an arrested person have a right to keep their name and face private from the media?

It's a problem of culture more than anything. Until this obsession with 24 hr broadcast bullshit ends, I think you'll always have this problem. People are nosy and can't mind their own business.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

/ wrote:The press has always had a bit of a bent towards insinuating the worst of people, every other 60 Minutes/Dateline/48 Hours type show includes some sort of insinuation that a person exonerated by the courts or was never charged somehow got away with murder.

That sort of sensationalism sells of course, and arguably it does lead to some justice for incidents that could have otherwise be swept under the rug, such as the Cosby incidents or the ongoing Laquan McDonald case. still, many lives are permanently ruined by the news jumping the gun and being ever so eager to plaster a suspects face up on TV far before trial or even formal charges. People placed prematurely before the court of public opinion have lose jobs, been assaulted, driven to suicide, and even murdered.

So how do we balance privacy and freedom of the press? Does the public have a right to "breaking news" moment by moment, whether it leads anywhere or not? Does an arrested person have a right to keep their name and face private from the media?

It's a problem of culture more than anything. Until this obsession with 24 hr broadcast bullshit ends, I think you'll always have this problem. People are nosy and can't mind their own business.

-TG

You're asking for an end to the internet?

Symmetry wrote:

jgordon1111 wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:This is why vigilantism is the only legitimate form of policing. Without local militias and warlords, your society just descends into chaos.

Pfft you kidding? Laws and police are in place for a reason,but you don't like them then get them LEGALLY changed.

It wasn't too long ago that an investigation into the London police found then to be institutionally racist

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

A legal investigation resulting in positive change. You made it sound like a bad thing

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

jgordon1111 wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:This is why vigilantism is the only legitimate form of policing. Without local militias and warlords, your society just descends into chaos.

Pfft you kidding? Laws and police are in place for a reason,but you don't like them then get them LEGALLY changed.

It wasn't too long ago that an investigation into the London police found then to be institutionally racist

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

A legal investigation resulting in positive change. You made it sound like a bad thing

I'm sorry if you think I made it sound unpleasant.