The end of free speech as we know it?
This academic entry isn't about bill 1959 or the end of free speech as we know it, it is merely my comment on some ethical concerns with the following story.
"Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America"
- quote taken from story headline
A friend forwarded this "article" from NewsTarget.com. The author, Mike Adam, talks about a new Senate bill (1959), which would essentially be the “…end of Free Speech.�
Ethical issues arose when I got to his linkage to a YouTube video of Naomi Wolf’s lecture on the “10 steps of fascism,� and the endorsement that readers go click on the provided Amazon link to buy her book, both of which got a slight eyebrow raise from me, but I was absolutely surprised when I got to his blatant endorsement of Ron Paul for president.
When I first starting reading this “article,� I assumed it was just that - a news article. Upon further investigation of NewsTarget, (I had never heard of them before), I came across a very important part of their discloser that was located at the very bottom of the homepage. It stated that “all content…is commentary or opinion…�
Interestingly enough, I had just finished reading the New Media ethics section in our course packet and immediately thought that this story was questionable. Just by glancing at the page, I cannot see any disclosure that this article was opinion-based. I also see mostly health ads covering most of the free space surrounding the actual story. But, to be fair, in NewsTarget’s discloser (which is in fine print at the very bottom of the homepage) they state: “Truth Publishing International, LTD. has full ownership of and takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no health or nutritional products and earns no money from health product manufacturers or promoters.�
NewsTarget.com’s motto is “information that empowers ™,� sure Adams is informing me on this new Senate bill, but I thought more disclosure could be used, and if NewsTarget isn’t getting any money for the ads, then why are they there in the first place? It’s tacky.
This story is essentially a blog...that isn't presented in that way. I thought the site was misleading and lacked some serious disclosure, for real. I also posted the above thoughts in my journalism Media Ethics (JOUR 3771) class' discussion, so hopefully other students weigh in with their thoughts.
-B