Tag: journalistic ethics


Worth Reading

Even in our crime-wearied times, people sometimes behave with a heartlessness that just stops you in your tracks. Two such incidents happened recently. A 79-year-old woman has died from head injuries after trying to fight off teenage muggers who robbed her of the bag containing her husband’s ashes. Of course these youths didn’t know what the bag contained. But what a terrible commentary on our society, where not even the dead are safe from muggers who have no qualms about robbing an elderly woman. This attack followed hard on the heels of a story about a teenage burglar who, asked to write a letter of apology to his victims, wrote instead that he wasn’t bothered or sorry at all, and that the burglary was all their fault for leaving their window open. Such incidents suggest that we are dealing with something beyond merely ruthless acquisitiveness and contempt for the law. They suggest a total absence of empathy for another person, which is the basic requirement of morality and, in turn, of a civilised society. They illustrate a brutalisation of humanity. Evidence of this sickening tendency has been accumulating for years. While violent crime has always been with us, elements of sadism, cruelty or total indifference to anyone else’s distress are becoming frighteningly commonplace. To some of us, it has long seemed obvious that this is intimately related to the breakdown of religious belief. It is the morality embedded in the Bible that expressly requires us to put the interests of others first. –Melanie Philips

A new word recently surfaced: Ineptocracy. While not yet officially part of the language, it has been defined as, “A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.” As good a working description of our current culture as that is, I submit another: Malignantocracy. Merriam-Webster defines “malignant,” as “evil in nature, influence, or effect: injurious,” as “passionately and relentlessly malevolent: aggressively malicious,” and, in the context of health, “tending to produce death or deterioration ; especially: tending to infiltrate, metastasize, and terminate fatally < a malignant tumor>.” Therefore, in the context of a democratic republic, a malignantocracy is a government that, having appealed to malevolence and malice for its election, is itself malevolent and malicious in its actions, and whose policies and effects are injurious, resulting in the death or deterioration of what is governed. By this definition, we are in a malignantocracy. –Patriot Post

A particularly egregious claim by proponents of anthropogenic global warming theory is that ‘the science is settled’ and that there is a consensus amongst scientists that the atmosphere is catastrophically heating up because of man’s ever-heavier carbon footprint. Egregious because, in a classic bit of circular reasoning, scientists sceptical of AGW have been systematically denied a voice in the press and on the airwaves, their exclusion thus ‘proving’ the alleged ‘consensus’ through their absence. Until recently, it might have been assumed that the cause of such exclusion by the BBC was simple ideological bias. For the past two weekends, however, David Rose in the Mail on Sunday has been showing that something far worse has been going on. Yesterday, Rose revealed that the BBC was so deeply in the pocket of AGW scientists that its reporting of AGW was utterly compromised. –Melanie Philips

© Copyright 2014, All Rights Reserved