I understand roughly zero of the ethical claims made here, or in much of the discussion of Gawker for that matter. http://thkpr.gs/3681807
-
-
Replying to @jttiehen
For example, what's supposed to be the moral significance of whether or not he's a "public person"? Genuinely confused as what the view is.
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jttiehen
If this had been Tim Geithner instead of his brother, is the story morally fine? Is that the claim, or entailed by what's said?
5 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jttiehen
Or suppose extortion was involved. Extortion is bad; I get that. But how does that have moral bearing on the story itself?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sarahdoingthing
@sarahdoingthing Yes. I replied to somebody else with Dennis Hastert example (you can see it in my mentions).1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sarahdoingthing
@sarahdoingthing Yes, but then 901 replies. I can see objections to Gawker, but not the ones mostly being made. And objections that...1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jttiehen
@sarahdoingthing occur to me mostly generalize, and so would cut equally against printing story about Larry Craig, for example.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jttiehen
@sarahdoingthing Partly wonder if journalists are confusing good rules of thumb (public figures get clicks) for genuine moral principles.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.