Tags » Journalistic Ethics

Commentary Ingredients: A Point, Substance, and a Little Vinegar

Picture, if you will, an angry mob armed with torches and pitchforks storming a particular house in an otherwise quiet neighborhood.

Now, let’s bring the picture into a little more focus. 477 more words

that's not what I said at all!

One thing a journalist never wants to go through is being interviewed, in part because they’re too familiar with the interview process to be comfortable having someone else do it, but mostly because they know what ends up in print — or on the air — is never what the subject of the interview thinks it should be. 585 more words

Daily Post

In Other Sunu-news...A Question of Journalistic Ethics

Hey, you journos out there — a question:

A columnist pens a denunciation of new federal policy. The new policy also happens to be contrary to the interests of a… 639 more words


I Won't Watch It

Kish and I were driving home yesterday, so we missed the TV news coverage of the awful shootings in Virginia.  We therefore didn’t see the footage of the killer gunning down two innocent people, for reasons no one will be able to explain. 308 more words


The Big Pink Elephant

Queer clowns, comedic activism, and the harm of “progressive” humor

This blog seeks to take the big pink elephant head-on. The elephant in the room is homophobia in the media, but not your average, homophobic social conservatives. 1,155 more words


Wallace Runnymede reblogged this on wallacerunnymede and commented:

Fascinating post on the complexity and ambivalence of satirising prejudices and bigotry. It does often seem to me that all satire about bigotry often (or possibly always) take the risk of reinforcing prejudices. This is one reason why I believe every satire writer, paid or unpaid, new or old, would benefit from reflecting on what our limits are. Not in the sense of an externally imposed norm (i.e. "heteronomous" norm), but on an individual level, in our own individual social contexts. I often feel that satire is "amoral" not in the sense of being "morally neutral" (sic), but in the sense of being radically ambivalent, rather than positive or negative. One key question is: Under what circumstances might the ambivalence end up boiling out, and becoming explicitly vicious and pernicious? But this is, of course, a contextual matter. I wonder if anyone has written some rough speculations (or indeed empirical studies) on the latter question. Certainly, satire is always a form of "symbolic violence." And, to borrow the other two terms of the trichotomy in Slavoj Zizek's "Violence," it can either be subjective violence (spontaneous, insurresctionary, bottom-up) or objective violence (ordered, authoritative, regulated, top-down ). Needless to say, the three terms of this trichotomy are not always necessarily discrete and mutually exclusive possibilities.

Pleasant Memories: Working for the CBC in the Fifties and Sixties

It felt good. The CBC was a church. The President was the Pope and the Vice Presidents the cardinals. Middle managers were high priests and a few Mothers Superior and the rest of us were monks and nuns. 276 more words

It's always the attempted cover up that causes problems

Ahmen Khawaja, a BBC journalist overhears a conversation about the Queen’s health. I imagine she’s thinking she’ll be joining the throng of people tweeting about it, and also I imagine hoping she’ll be thought of being in on a big story. 133 more words

BBC & The Media