The dialogue going on online is really, really interesting. I'm thinking there is a "public interest" exception here, whereby if someone approaches the media themselves to admit to criminal activity of national interest... It might be the moral choice? But idk
At what point should a host end a live interview with a person of immediate national interest due to suspicion that (s)he may be intoxicated or experiencing a mental health crisis? I don’t know the answer, but media meltdowns are really unsettling to me for this reasonhttps://twitter.com/esotericcd/status/970827224151658496 …
-
-
-
I don't think putting a "random" on television experiencing a psychotic episode is good, or moral. It's deeply depressing. What do you think, does that bright line rule bend due to public interest?
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.