Skip to content

Blog assignment for Prof. Cifatte’s recitations

September 23, 2011

Read this following short article:
What do you think of the politicians’ situation and the claims on each side?
How will this change the way you post on social media sites (if at all)?  Do you have the same gatekeeper/filter responsibility as a news organization?
Limit your answer to 200-300 words.
We’ll pick up our discussion with your answers Tuesday and move on to some of the ethical issues naming people in stories can create.

33 Comments leave one →
  1. Samantha Jodice permalink
    September 25, 2011 6:27 pm

    When I read this story of the politician and how he personally accused his opponent of being involved with and having a previous drug record, without having solid evidence of this accusation being true, I felt as though the politician had publicly made himself untrustworthy. I believe when using social media sites, we should never write, blog, or post comments that incriminate another individual or group of individuals, such as a company or business in any way. It is not our job to accuse a person or publicly humiliate someone. Of course there will be those people who must publicize their opinions and beliefs, but if a person wants to be professional and gain respect from others, the best way to do so is to not spill out emotions and place words on the web that are untrue. As we saw in the article about the politician, if a person catches you spreading a lie or an unproven truth on the web, once in court there is no way to back yourself up or prove yourself. We should hold ourselves to the same level of responsibility as news organizations, and filter what we type on the internet. Not only would that be good ethics, but it was also keep us out of trouble with the law, and from spreading lies that could harm another person’s reputation or even their life.

  2. Carleen Hunt permalink
    September 26, 2011 11:40 am

    I found it interesting to learn that you could even get sued for libel for saying something like “in my humble opinion…” It seems like this makes it obvious that it is not a fact you are stating, rather than an opinion. Especially if you are giving your opinion on something like a restaurant or company that you didn’t like. If your opinion isn’t 100% true, you could get in trouble for giving it. I don’t like how sensitive it is on what you can or can’t do. If I want to tell my friends on Facebook what I believe to be true about a company, I should have the freedom of speech to do that. Maybe it is a little true and the rest is exaggerated, but that little bit of truth that I based my opinion on is still the truth. I am already very careful about what I post on Facebook, so I don’t think I’ll change my filter. You should always be careful with what information you’re giving out on the internet, especially if it deals with someone else, you should usually keep your mouth shut. However, if I did not receive good service from something that I paid for, I would think I have the freedom to share this information. Maybe now I will double think before doing this.

  3. Melissa Bognaski permalink
    September 26, 2011 1:00 pm

    I think the politician was in the wrong. He had no right to accuse his opponent of having a drug record if he did not have any concrete proof. No one should be able to accuse someone of something, just because they “believe” it is true, especially, on the internet, where everyone can see their posts. Now that the internet has become a number one source to find and spread information, it is important that the information is reliable. If everyone believed the posts the politician made, then his opponent would suffer greatly. At the click of a mouse, a reputation can be ruined forever. It is understandable for everyone to have their own opinions and beliefs about someone, but posting them on the internet for everyone to see is childish and at times disgraceful. The politician was, unsurprisingly, trying to dishonor his opponent’s character, and ended up tarnishing his own. He made an accusation with no proof to back it up, by succumbing to the easy accessibility of the internet to voice his “beliefs”. This article has made me question the integrity of my posts on social media sites. I will now be more cautious when posting my opinions, and will not post anything about somebody, unless I have solid proof to back up my claims. I believe that I have the same gatekeeper responsibility as a news organization. If I am going to post something for the whole world to see I need to be held accountable to be truthful and reliable.

  4. Taylor Dawson permalink
    September 26, 2011 1:17 pm

    After I read the part of the story regarding the politician, my first thought was that his words had made him seem unethical and unprofessional. People should get into the habit of accumulating facts to back up statements before announcing them publicly, and if you can’t do that, DON’T POST IT. Celebrities, politicians and those with any sort of media light shining on them are definitely more subject to libel lawsuits. There are only a select few friends that I have on Facebook that know enough about the laws regarding libel to even know posting untrue information about someone on a social networking site, or anywhere else for that matter, is a crime. Although it is wrong on every level, people with more eyes on them are more subject to be at risk for lawsuits for such comments. This all could change in time though, with social networking sites becoming a larger part of the everyday lives of the majority of the world, even the general public could eventually become as subject to these lawsuits as well known people. I personally don’t believe we uphold the same filter responsibility as a news organization because it’s common knowledge not to believe everything you read online unless it’s from a completely reliable news source. No matter who you are though, famous or not, it is unethical and quite frankly none of your business to be posting personal matters about others, whether they are true or not.

  5. Brent Atteberry permalink
    September 26, 2011 1:43 pm

    I feel that the politician made an unwise move. I feel that he should not have accused someone simply because he felt that was true. He has publicly embarrassed himself in addition to spreading lies. I believe it is the personal responsibility of each individual to be careful what they say and post on websites. That means, they should not falsely accuse people without proper evidence but also that they should not post things that display their own disregard for the law. For example: underage people that post pictures of themselves with alcohol. I believe that the author of this article was correct in predicting that the internet will become more and more regulated in the future. Right now social media sites are new and people get away with a lot more than what will probably be allowed in the future.

  6. Carleen Hunt permalink
    September 26, 2011 1:47 pm

    I found it very surprising to learn that even saying “in my humble opinion…” followed by what you think could still get you in trouble for libel. It seems like if a person is stating their opinion and not trying to pass it off as fact that this should be allowed. I am always very careful about what I post on Facebook, but if I want to tell my friends and family about an experience I had at a restaurant or store, I should have the freedom of speech to do this. Even if some of it is the truth and the rest is exaggerated, the bit of truth I based my opinion on is still the truth. I should especially be allowed to share my comments if I paid for the service and did not receive what I expected. I can understand someone getting sued for ruining someone else’s reputation, but giving an opinion on a business just promotes competition and allows that company to realize what they need to fix. However, I will continue to be careful on the things I post, especially if it deals with someone else. In most cases, it’s best to just keep your mouth shut.

  7. Tania Pluviose permalink
    September 26, 2011 2:05 pm

    I think the politician intent was to purposely damage his opponent’s reputation because of the medium and the audience he chose. If the politician’s intentions were good he would have spoken to his opponent directly, not post on a popular social media web site. The claim that ‘I believe that it was true’ because this information was given to him by a respected political leader in his party has no traction. Had there be a police report available then this politician would be making a true statement. People reading the post would be able to verify this information.
    This does slightly changes the way I post on social media sites. I seldom do, but when I post, I think if I can read or show this to my family or friend I can post it. I love my privacy so I try really hard to respect other people’s lives.
    We do have the same gatekeeper/filter responsible however the consequence may be different for a private citizen verses a public company whose job is to deliver news. A newspaper may lose its credibility and start to become a tabloid news outlet. A private citizen my lose social and or economic status.

  8. Emily Spaulding permalink
    September 26, 2011 2:56 pm

    What do you think of the politicians’ situation and the claims on each side?

    The situation that the politician got himself involved in seems only too familiar. These days, online accusations (whether they be true or false) are made quite often on social networking sites for the world to see. What the politician claimed about his opponent with no hard evidence to back up his remarks was clearly wrong in an ethical sense, but why would anyone look to facebook as a reliable source of political information anyway? Last time I checked politicians have always been untrustworthy and unreliable, specifically when speaking about their opponents. For people to say that he had ‘no right’ to say what he said about his opponent is silly to me because politicians use media such as commercials and interviews to slam other candidates ALL THE TIME. It sucks because much of it is untrue, but people rarely request evidence of what is being said about candidates. By attacking someone through the use of facebook he is only making himself seem less professional and less reliable, so hopefully his untruthful remarks will only hurt him in the end, but I don’t think punishment would accomplish anything in this situation.

    How will this change the way you post on social media sites (if at all)? Do you have the same gatekeeper/filter responsibility as a news organization?

    I don’t abuse facebook or twitter to slam individuals, and if I do feel the need to make a negative remark about someone or something, it’s always worded as an opinion and made as more of a generalization rather than being about a specific individual or group. My filter responsibility is clearly not as serious as that of a politician, but for the sake of representing my sorority, job, and role as a student at FGCU, I try to keep my remarks on networking sites as professional as possible.

  9. Rachel Perez permalink
    September 26, 2011 3:03 pm

    The politician’s statement about the “drug use” of another politician was both false and highly inappropriate. He may as well have publicly announced that he was untrustworthy and rash. The fact that it was over Facebook made it that much more juvenile. If you’re a public figure, you should definitely take the time to think about what you are posting. As for libel law suits over Facebook posts and tweets, it would have to depend on the situation and if it falls under the criteria. I don’t think this will change how I tweet or post status’—I tend not to post negative things and I certainly don’t “bash” anyone or anything over the internet. The article and lectures in class, though, have made me aware that things that you post can have consequences. You tend not to think about lawsuits and things of that nature when you tweet or go on Facebook. I think that we do have the same “gatekeeper” responsibility but it is more personal. We cannot control what anyone else posts but we can control what we post. We have to think about the pictures we post or the comments we make, especially if it’s out of anger.

  10. Cody Pry permalink
    September 26, 2011 3:09 pm

    The politician who made the false accusations about his opponent having a prior drug record is unprofessional, and already before he even had a chance to hold a position already lived up to a common stereotype for politicians in that they’re liars. Even worse he did it on facebook which we all know just how many people can see what you post. The politician who made the accusations said that he “believed it to be true” there are many things people can believe to be true that are not. Without substantial evidence then somebody should not make accusations about another person in public or somewhere where they will be published.

  11. Sheilla Dumel permalink
    September 26, 2011 3:38 pm

    This is what i can not seems to get my head wrapped around. politicians are always accusing someone else for something they think they did. How is someone going to have the heart false accusation on some one who you think of having drugs.Any body who are in their right mind would not put inappropriate things about other people. And other people who were dumb enough to post it on facebook, to me what seems like ignorant no good so called human out there. Just because some people out the feels like they should have the right to put other people reputation on the line and ruined it, that should not make any other human being to follow their trap. Let them be the bad guys not us.

  12. Jasmine Lewis permalink
    September 26, 2011 4:21 pm

    I feel as though the politician’s claim was unprofessional and totally unnecessary. You can not make public accusations about someone and think that there will not be any consequences for your behavior. This doesn’t really change the way I post on social media sites because I know not to make accusations about someone publicly but I have learned through experience that it is not such a great idea to post things about your personal life such as relationships, fights with friends, etc… I believe we do have the same filter responsibility as a news organization to a certain extent. We do not have to take on the responsibility of committing others for their accusations but we do have to take on the responsibility of filtering what we write. Before we hit “share” we should definitely think to ourselves “am i posting something that could possibly hurt another? is this something that will start an argument or stur up commotion?” I think this will help with the many problems social media sites have regarding libel.

  13. Aleksandr Skop permalink
    September 26, 2011 4:32 pm

    Bieng a political science major (and possibly pursuing a political career), I find it disgraceful to read of this dirty, cheap-shot political slander against opponents. Rather then focusing on an their agenda, certain politicians seek to viciously attack their opponents personal faults, which most of the time are not even true. So I am firmly against such childish behavior in politics. As for the social media, I believe that if you want respect and a good reputation in society, avoid accusations and loud statements unless you are 100% certain of their validity. I am certainly more careful with what I share on the internet, because a couple of seconds of venting and frustration can land you a lawsuit and a tarnished reputation.

  14. Natalie permalink
    September 26, 2011 4:56 pm

    I think that the politician made an bad move and wasn’t thinking clearly before deciding what he did. I feel that he should not have accused someone simply because he felt that was true, you have to have proof before accusing them. He has publicly embarrassed himself due to spreading lies, and accusing an innocent person. I believe it is the personal responsibility of each individual to be careful what they say and leash out onto the media. This means that they should not falsely accuse people without proper evidence but also that they should not post things that display their own disregard for the law. There is a proper way to do what had happened rather than post things on the web. It looks worse on you rather the person you’re accusing. Lots of times people post things and say things they should not do on the web. Some people such as teens and even adults will post things and they don’t think of the consequence due to it. I believe that the author of this article was correct in predicting that the internet will become more and more regulated in the future. Right now social media is around us such twitter, facebook, and new ones keep coming. Everyone always wants the new things and also look at what other people do. the web has bad outcomes as well such as cyber bullying and stalking and people pretending who they aren’t, also posting bad comments and such.

  15. Michael Bridges permalink
    September 26, 2011 5:05 pm

    The politician’s comment about his opponent’s alleged “prior drug record” was not only an inaccuracy, grounded in the fact that the opponent had never been charged or convicted of any drug crime, and defended on the basis of the fact that the politician “believed it was true,” but also inappropriate, even if this type of mud-slinging is quite typical among political races.
    To be quite honest, I keep my Facebook status updates to a minimum. When I do post statuses, I do apply a sort of “gatekeeper/filter” method, making sure that they are not targeted against another person, and the statements are grounded in truth. I feel if more people were informed of these cases of “Facebook Users Libel” they would be much, much more cautious about what they post.

  16. Sarah Lappen permalink
    September 26, 2011 5:26 pm

    In my opinion the fact that the politician would post a statement like that on facebook regardless of its accuracy only serves to make that politician just as bad as his opponent. The fact that his particular statement was untrue only serves to further disgrace his image.I personally make an effort to stay away from any controversial statements or comments made on facebook and never post negative things about others. I think that this has served me well seeing as I have never been negatively mentioned on facebook. Due to the way I already conduct myself on the internet these guidelines will not change the way I behave in regards to internet sites, but will only serve to reinforce my current behavior. I don’t think that as average citizens we should necessarily be held to the same guidelines and standards as news organization but I do believe it is within peoples best interest to avoid making false and negatively motivated remarks online.

  17. Nathan Ingham permalink
    September 26, 2011 5:37 pm

    The statement the politician made is un-acceptable. The opponent he was referring too had never been convicted or charged with any drug related crime, and even if he were to, it is not the place of the opposisition to bring it out publicly. As a profesional public figure a certain responsibility has to be present with everything they say. As for regular people to be treated the same as public figures; I think it is only fair for them to be dealt with the exact same…. After all, we are all equals. The problem is a regular “average joe” person does not realise the magnitude of their words because they often don’t have 100+ likes on their facebook status or 10,000 followers on twitter. To make everyone have a filter on what they say to avoid charges is more than ok to do, but with that being said we have to make sure that everyone knows what libel is, as well as understand the consequences. This has to start in the school systems and be well advertised on the news so people know to be careful; it’s a great idea, but a great approach is needed to enforce it.

  18. Brittany permalink
    September 26, 2011 5:44 pm

    After reading this story about the politician and how he accused his competition of drug use, due to media, I believe he publicly made himself look unprofessional. You cannot believe everything you see and hear without having evidence that you personally see. If everyone believed everything they heard and saw, than our society would be crazy and out of control. On a public level, being a politician, I believe, is one of the highest and one of the most professional jobs in our country, and by lowering yourself to believing social media news, you have taken away your professionalism and have made your overall appearance to society become one of just a normal everyday citizen. Social media, these days, is filled with false statements and drama that circulates around everywhere. As much as social media has it’s positive aspects, such as reconnecting with people from many years ago, or advertising many things, it is filled with problems and negativity throughout the entire aspect. As a social media member, I have experienced negativity that was falsely stated about me on facebook, but it was a matter of realizing things like this will happen but you have to know it is just drama and false statements that people will realize and believe no matter what. I will be more cautious of what I personally say on these media websites because I would not want false statements said about me and them to affect my future career and lifestyle, therefore preventing it for someone else would make me a better person. I believe I do have the same gatekeeper as the media because something I say as an individual can affect the present and future business or lifestyle as another individual or even a huge corporate company.

  19. Christina Nissen permalink
    September 26, 2011 6:03 pm

    After reading the article I believe that the politician was completely wrong. His use of Facebook to exploit and create a bad light for his competitor was unprofessional and extremely unwise. His justification for his publications was also very unprofessional because it showed that the politician didn’t do his research, and simply believed rumors. I have always had discretion when posting pictures or thoughts of Facebook and Twitter. The idea of any of those submissions could be printed on the front of a newspaper has kept me cautious. I believe that we all have the responsibility to be gatekeepers. Living in such a technologically advanced society where a rumor or a piece of news can be spread in a millisecond has made us all processors of this information. As a society we need to stop with the rumors and concentrate on the facts and what actually happened.

  20. Matt Weaver permalink
    September 26, 2011 6:26 pm

    The article did a very good job in pointing out some of the most common cases of libel on the internet. In the case of the politician, one of their offhanded comments towards their political opponent was polished in a very public light. His comment seems to have gotten him in quite the trouble, and it also shows how dirty politics have become in this day and age. As for how I post on social media sites, I haven’t ever made negative statements like that on them, and don’t plan on it in the future. If I were, I don’t feel I have the same responsibility as the news organization to be a filter or gatekeeper. Not being a respectable news source should automatically make your information dramatically less reliable. Not every person uneducated on the ways of professional journalism shouldn’t be held to the same standards as a professional journalist.

  21. Drew permalink
    September 26, 2011 6:34 pm

    This story tells how easy it is to make a mistake. The politician from Knoxville claimed that he believed his accusation of his opponent was true but that does not mean he should not be held accountable. Anyone can write on a blog or post whatever they so choose on Facebook but that doesn’t make their words fact. People should be more careful of what they put onto social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter because of libel suites. I think libeling is easy to accidentally do if someone does not know what exactly it is. I also believe that companies like Facebook and Twitter should be working hard to raise awareness of what libel is and the consequences that it could entail.

  22. Mary Castro permalink
    September 26, 2011 6:43 pm

    After reading this article and after talking about libel in class I honestly think that the politician made himself a target. Accusing his opponent of having a drug record is a huge thing within itself. But accusing his opponent with no evidence seems reckless. Common sense would tell you not to accuse someone of something so serious without evidence. I’ve never been one to talk badly about someone through hthe internet but hearing about libel whatever small chance of that happening has been completely squashed. I believe that once I learned about the consequences of libel I became more cautious. I honestly don’t want to have a lawsuit on my hands because of a careless comment I made about someone. I do believe we have the same gatekeeper/filter responsibility as the news organization. I don’t think that we can use the excuse “oh I’m not that big of deal so it doesn’t matter what I post about Rib City.” I honestly think that no matter who you are you should be careful about what you post onto social media sites because eventually someone somewhere is going to see it and they’re going to show Rib City what you wrote about them and if the statement you made is false then you will probably be facing a potential lawsuit.

  23. Melissa Wolfe permalink
    September 26, 2011 6:51 pm

    I don’t think that it is appropriate for politicians to be making false statements about one another to get votes. It is one thing if you are making true statements about someone else that makes people see them in a different light, but to make flat out false statements to taint someone else’s image is wrong. I use caution when posting on facebook, because you never know who is looking at your wall. I think that it is wrong to tell blatant lies about people. I wouldn’t want someone telling lies about me; therefore, I wouldn’t tell lies about someone else. I don’t think that individuals are held to the same standard as people in the public eye, however, individuals need to be careful about what they are posting because you never know who will be reading it and will take offense to it

  24. Andrew Yelich permalink
    September 26, 2011 7:20 pm

    The politician made a poor judgement error, he should have looked deeper into what he accused and gotten facts. As for a gatekeeper to what I say online, I don’t have one. But I also don’t talk about anyone anyway, so I don’t actually need one. I don’t care if people get offended by what I say. If they don’t like it they can look away.

  25. James Carroll permalink
    September 26, 2011 7:46 pm

    I don’t think this type of thing will change the way I post things on the internet. First of all, it isn’t really in my nature to make judgement calls and try to bring attention to someone else’s faults, and the fact that something I believe about someone else may be untrue makes that go against my nature even further. Still, I think in the digital age we do have similar responsibilities as news organizations since everything we post on the internet is public (unless you mess with your privacy settings on facebook, etc.). Obviously, individuals are not held up to the same standards of integrity as a new organization, but that doesn’t mean your words have no credibility.
    As for what the politians said, I’m glad that there are going to be reprecussions for lying to the public. Hopefully these types of incidents will create a more honest atmosphere in politics and journalism. It seems like the lesson here is that lying is clearly counterproductive. In an attempt to discredit his opponent, the man actually hurt himself by exposing his own ignorance.

  26. September 26, 2011 7:47 pm

    In this day and age, it amazes me that a politician would post something bad and incorrect about his opponent on Facebook. Also, the fact that he only “believed” his opponent used the drugs is even worse. The politician didn’t even have cold hard facts to prove anything. Even if it was true, doing something as child-ish as that is embarrassing. Lately, I have been reminded many times to watch what I tweet or post on Facebook. Luckily, I don’t have a problem with watching what I update because I don’t update my social media sites too much. When I do, I have a pretty good filter of what is true and not true. I try and stick with the facts, whatever they might be. I think people should be more aware of what they post. I don’t think that everyone should have the exact filter as a news organization, but they shouldn’t post anything that will hurt them later on in life.

  27. September 26, 2011 8:47 pm

    I believe the politician lowered thier own credibility when posting negative and untrue comments about thier opponent on facebook. Not only is it dirty politics and a case for libel, it sets a bad example for how Facebook users ought to conduct themselves when using the site. I personally am not beyond making contoversial statements on Facebook, but I do have a personal filter in that I do not post lies, gossip, or anything else that has the potential to harm or incriminate myself or others.

  28. Arcadia Hauquitz permalink
    September 26, 2011 10:15 pm

    The politician was definitely in the wrong and should never have posted something as damaging to both parties as his opponent having a drug record without proof. He should have made sure of that because as humiliating as it was to his opponent it is even worse now for him and his credibility. In a way I feel this kinda resolved itself in that his lie came back to bite him in the butt. However, I do not think everyday citizens should not be held to the same gatekeeper standards as news organizations though I do feel public figures, such as this politician, should be. Citizens are by their title not known as “credible” sources for hard facts as news organizations are and thus should not be held to the same standards however, public figures have great influence over how people perceive things and thus should be held to the same standard as news organizations.

  29. Melissa Roche permalink
    September 26, 2011 10:18 pm

    Although the Knoxville politician claimed to have truly believed that his opponent had been previously charged of a drug crime, it is still considered libel. It is an unstable argument against having committed libel because the statement was simply not true. Knowing this will definitely change the way that I post on social media sites. Even though I do not post malicious comments about anyone on my social networking sites (Facebook), I do sometimes post comments in a joking manner. However, I will be more careful about what I post, knowing that someone may attempt to sue me if they ever get mad at me and claim that I committed libel against them.
    Personally, I feel that we should partially share in the same responsibility as a news organization in regards to being a gatekeeper/filter. Granted, the information or comments that we post will not always be one hundred percent accurate, but we should post things that we truly do believe to be accurate.

  30. Karla permalink
    September 26, 2011 11:54 pm

    I believe the politician was totally unfair and mistaken. Just because you “believe” or “think” or you add your personal opinion about someone or something doesn’t make it accurate. You could be harming the person’s life and reputation. How much evidence did the politician have to make the statement a fact? If I would be in the other guy’s position I would probably feel offended and disrespected. I definitely would have done the same thing to clear my name out. The accusation was not insignificant, it involved illegal issues that I’m sure no one would like to read about. When it comes to the “gatekeepers” I think it also degrades the media’s quality of information because the people will not trust it. I think it would be taken more as gossip and perhaps entertainment instead of something informative and reliable. I don’t recall me saying untruthful comments online about anybody, but I know a lot of people and friends that have put their businesses out there and also comments about other people and everyone is able to that. This article has definitely made me think about what I post online whether or not is bad. I think if you have issues with somebody is better off to deal with it face to face or somehow to avoid this type of problems.

  31. Paige Lukert permalink
    September 27, 2011 10:35 pm

    I think that the story about the politician is a hard one to determine whether it’s libel or not. Honestly, some people don’t know if his opponent had or had a drug problem.. so it could be true. But, considering he was never charged or accused of anything, we will never know the truth. Also, I feel that I always watch what I say on the internet, or I watch who I say it to. Facebook has a feature where you can select who you want to hide things from or just show to certain people. That could be a very handy tool when you want to vent about people. But, in general I think I filter my Facebook status’ just like newspaper would filter the news. I make sure it’s appropriate for people to read and I make sure it’s worth reading, and not something stupid that no one cares about.

  32. Heather Comitz permalink
    October 6, 2011 12:15 am

    Though I don’t believe these situations should be as sensitive as they are, I absolutely feel that everyone (especially Politians) should always refrain from defamation of another human being. It’s completely different if you have an opinion of someone else’s character, or have malice towards them. Posting it publicly on Facebook isn’t at all necessary. However, I do think a good majority of suits are products of revenge. Possibly for the sole reason of causing the other hurt. This hurt is now known as defamation. If a person has no prior incidents, or is an all around great person I of course think it’s wrong to bankrupt them. But it’s the courts that make this decision. All in all, if you don’t want to be sued, use your common sense and don’t voice your opinions if they’re negative. If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it at all!

  33. Laureen Esposito permalink
    November 7, 2011 10:14 pm

    This must have been one I couldn’t find but i did now i hope it dont count against me

    I think the politician was in the wrong. He had no right to accuse his opponent of having a drug record if he did not have any concrete proof. No one should be able to accuse someone of something, just because they “believe” it is true, especially, on the internet, where everyone can see their posts. Now that the internet has become a number one source to find and spread information, it is important that the information is reliable. Which is where the real problem comes in the internet has journalist as anyone who hits the submit or post key. Would you want your information blown up even if it were untrue it is still there and people will always think.You could be harming the person’s life and reputation. How much evidence did the politician have to make the statement a fact? If I would be in the other guy’s position I would probably feel offended and disrespected. I definitely would have done the same thing to clear my name out. I personally, feel that we should partially share in the same responsibility as a news organization in regards to being a gatekeeper/filter. Keep in mind that the information or comments that we post will not always be one hundred percent accurate, but we should post things that we truly do believe to be accurate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: