We have a freedom of speech, but that doesn't negate our social responsibility to speak with reason and purpose.
Bloggers have the option to write scandalous stories, scathing reviews and dismissive copy.
Newspapers have the right to publish ridiculous editorial, to focus on negativity and to build irrational fear.
But in an age when print media's strongest claim to the throne of journalism, to a future as a paid media outlet, is integrity, one can't help but question the print media's indiscretion over the past few months.
First the NY Post published a highly insensitive and irrational cartoon that have portrayed our president as a monkey. Then the NY Times published a cartoon equating Israel, the US's strongest democratic ally in a volatile region, to Nazis. Time and Newsweek regularly report on hype and speculation... on their front covers.
When the printed word loses it's integrity as a news outlet, what future do they have?
And as we begin to place on additional emphasis on socially centric reporting, on user generated editorial and perspective, how will we police ourselves? Will we keep ourselves honest? Can we trust the community to continue an honest dialogue in the absence of a professional moderator?
On that note, should we ever have trusted the professional media with this responsibility in the first place?
- - - - - - - -
On a side note, doesn't the NY Times, as a Western, liberal outlet, have a responsibility to create a culture of conversation? Is a cartoon depicting anyone as a Nazi, a group of monsters dedicated solely to genocide, ever truly warranted (aside from instances ethnic cleansing)? Is this the "responsible" media we are being asked to PAY for?
Have some class. Apoligize for the Oliphant cartoon. State your position on dismissive conversation. Or stay the course. Just don't go asking for a bailout.