What about a blogger’s?
—
What defines the public interest? … It’s an important principle that can be used to defend journalistic activities that go beyond what is normally considered acceptable behaviour – such as the use of subterfuge – to obtain a story, where complex moral and legal arguments are at stake. However, it is also often stretched to cover activities that many find thoroughly objectionable, not even of interest to the public.
— from The Guardian
OBJECTS IN MIRROR ARE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR
(image: 2008 Ducati 1098 S - Mirror by Basem Wasef via motorcycles.about.com))
– P
On this site Public Interests=’personal disgust’ (personal being one persons interest) and only if it suits them and if the Lame Stream Media mention for 2 nights in a row and claim the Public needs to know. Then the Media can’t possibly be making mountains out of Molehills.
If you are going to spend your life outing the rest of the world over their transgressions and failings then you better make darn sure that you are squeaky clean.
Hypocrisy is a fairly gross quality to have.
To answer question in the top image – Yes they matter to me. I don’t necessarily want all the gory details but if someone behaves poorly, is dishonest etc etc in their private life then you can bet that will carry over to every other part of their life.
Yes, agreed. Thanks for your comments.
I thought long and hard before I challenged someone for plagiarism & copyright infringement … knowing, assuredly, that such a move would mean my own actions in that regard would forever after be fair game.
(Likewise, when I hassle others for being untruthful.)
Nobody likes a hypocrite. An active one even less.
In my observation, sometimes those who protest most shrilly about the so-called ethics of others (or choose to constantly remind people of their past moral challenges and defeats) have, in the background, something dark and unacknowledged.
We touched on that in a recent post: Self-hate as a metric of intolerance?
– P
Hey Jacqueline,
I just remembered this wonderful article and some thoughts from Michael Lewis in another context completely
… which I referred to here: Live by the ethical assumptions of your market – or change your soul?
Best wishes, P
The question was defines Public Interest?
I think this is when there is a significant volume (hard to measure I know) that can justifiably warrant detail. If a few (people on this site included) or the Media state there is Public Interest at stake. Often its just wanting to out someone or something ‘to sling mud’ that suits themselves. Thus Making it Personal Interest. But then claiming its in the publics Interest. To then exaggerate the issue at hand.
I am not sure if Jacqueline’s regards to hypocrisy were pointed at me. But rest assured everyone and I mean everyone are/is NOT squeaky clean, but I guarantee I am cleaner than most.
Another interesting Point there Peter you state
“In my observation, sometimes those who protest most shrilly about the so-called ethics of others (or choose to constantly remind people of their past moral challenges and defeats) have, in the background, something dark and unacknowledged”
Yet you seem to do this on a weekly basis right here.
Hi Craig.
And your point about what I do here on a weekly basis is …? 🙂
Am I shrill? Sorry, that’s not intentional.
You may not be aware of the situation Jacqueline is (as I read her) referring to obliquely. Suffice to say it’s a matter concerned with the private sexual morality of someone who has publicly trumpeted allegations about other people’s ‘transgressions’ in that area. I don’t think her comments are aimed at you.
To clarify: I fully understand that as a critic I risk being judged by a harsher standard than someone who keeps their head down/mouth shut (or posts comments anonymously).
If I criticize bias or inaccuracies in others’ work, my own output deserves the same scrutiny. That’s fair. Nobody is without a point of view, as we have discussed many times, including
http://www.thepaepae.com/media-neutrality-vs-being-truthful/21194/
“Here’s a comment I appreciate on the issue of accuracy from US broadcaster Rachel Maddow … part of an excellent profile on her I read in The Guardian last year Rachel Maddow: ‘I’m definitely not an autocutie’ …
Rachel Maddow on media ’neutrality’ in The Guardian April 2011
And that, as I have said before, is where I come from too. Sure, I may have some bugbears (or bees in my bonnet?) but nothing justifies publishing non-facts in the guise of facts, or pretending to ‘break news’ when the (ahem) ‘reporter’ is, in fact, a political actor or party team player.”
But I don’t see myself as a partisan.
– P
Sometimes i wish i could strangle you – or drug you and take you to a re-conditioning course at an evangelical church nearby … but you are not a partisan mr Pete.
You have balls. Something some of us lack – for the females – its not their fault … for the rest of us … its a choice.
Are you – in fact – actually – the messiah…
Has Graeme written an expose of your true self?
I await the release of the revelations in NZ Womans Wankly.
I once dreamed that i had sex with a promiscuous gerbil in the kalahari desert at 5.45pm on the 12 of August 2003. Does this mean that i am a holder of dark and concealed secrets etc etc.
Where do i send the box of secret documents for publication.
Why did God ever invent Assholes ….
By recollection … John banks – Aussie Malcolm and Judith Tizard and Rodney hide were also in the desert at the same time in my dream …
I dont know how the gerbil felt about that. I Mean … it was like the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse – how would you interpret it …
It’s a long time since I’ve read Aussie Malcolm’s name. I liked him.
(I seem to recall he was opposed go the dawn raids?)
He seemed practical for a Muldoon cabinet minister. – P