Comments on: un-full disclosure http://wolffethics.wordpress.com/2007/11/17/un-full-disclosure/ Just another WordPress.com weblog Sat, 03 May 2008 12:33:40 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: wolffethics http://wolffethics.wordpress.com/2007/11/17/un-full-disclosure/#comment-15 wolffethics Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:30:47 +0000 http://wolffethics.wordpress.com/2007/11/17/un-full-disclosure/#comment-15 ... but how is simply providing the viewer with full context dumbing down? It's one thing to allow the viewer to make a decision or judgment about what she is hearing. At the same time, it seems to be the responsible and honest thing to do, to give a person's full credentials, particularly if that person is, in effect, representing one of the candidates. It would not put Carville in a negative light. It would simply put him in a full light. And that can never be bad. cw … but how is simply providing the viewer with full context dumbing down? It’s one thing to allow the viewer to make a decision or judgment about what she is hearing. At the same time, it seems to be the responsible and honest thing to do, to give a person’s full credentials, particularly if that person is, in effect, representing one of the candidates.

It would not put Carville in a negative light. It would simply put him in a full light. And that can never be bad.
cw

]]> By: Lora Painter http://wolffethics.wordpress.com/2007/11/17/un-full-disclosure/#comment-14 Lora Painter Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:16:10 +0000 http://wolffethics.wordpress.com/2007/11/17/un-full-disclosure/#comment-14 This is an interesting story. On the one hand, I don't see a huge ethical dilemma regarding not disclosing how intimate Carville is with the Clintons. He is entitled to his opinions. Of course he would have a slant toward Hilary, I expect that, but no more than any other person who may favor her over Obama. As a Hilary supporter, is it relevant to mention that I have never been involved with the Clinton administration? I don't think any of that information really makes a difference. Mentioning that Carville was a "presidential adviser" is enough to hint where his biases may lie. There is enough media coverage of Obama's and Clinton's campaigns to get both sides of the story. Carville might have even been a good choice of a person to include in the debate because of his close ties with the Clintons because I expect he should know a lot about them, their policies and Hilary's potential as a competent president. Also, if Carville's background was explicitly disclosed, he might have been marked in a negative way, framed by the network as biased and his arguments may be diminished. I prefer to let words stand as their own and the audience can decide for themselves how they want to view the situation. As members of the media, we shouldn't always dumb down things for our audience -- have a little faith that the public can actually think for itself. This is an interesting story. On the one hand, I don’t see a huge ethical dilemma regarding not disclosing how intimate Carville is with the Clintons. He is entitled to his opinions. Of course he would have a slant toward Hilary, I expect that, but no more than any other person who may favor her over Obama. As a Hilary supporter, is it relevant to mention that I have never been involved with the Clinton administration? I don’t think any of that information really makes a difference. Mentioning that Carville was a “presidential adviser” is enough to hint where his biases may lie. There is enough media coverage of Obama’s and Clinton’s campaigns to get both sides of the story. Carville might have even been a good choice of a person to include in the debate because of his close ties with the Clintons because I expect he should know a lot about them, their policies and Hilary’s potential as a competent president. Also, if Carville’s background was explicitly disclosed, he might have been marked in a negative way, framed by the network as biased and his arguments may be diminished. I prefer to let words stand as their own and the audience can decide for themselves how they want to view the situation. As members of the media, we shouldn’t always dumb down things for our audience — have a little faith that the public can actually think for itself.

]]>