The title of this article really needed some more thought in a world where most people don't read past it. The article itself is showing how what their contract requires isn't morality at all, but...
The title of this article really needed some more thought in a world where most people don't read past it. The article itself is showing how what their contract requires isn't morality at all, but ensuring they don't ever lose in the court of public opinion.
This is not true at all. Many professions have associate bodies who mandate codes of ethics, and many companies have following those codes as part of standard contracts - the most famous of those...
This is not true at all. Many professions have associate bodies who mandate codes of ethics, and many companies have following those codes as part of standard contracts - the most famous of those is likely doctors, but it's a thing in many other fields like engineering as well.
I think you're comparing apples to oranges. The stakes for the professions you want to compare with authors and entertainers are different, and often much higher.
I think you're comparing apples to oranges. The stakes for the professions you want to compare with authors and entertainers are different, and often much higher.
How is the current political climate under the Trump regime relevant to the resurgence of corporations trying to con people into signing away their free speech rights as a condition for...
How is the current political climate under the Trump regime relevant to the resurgence of corporations trying to con people into signing away their free speech rights as a condition for publication? As far as I'm concerned, it isn't, so you're just indulging in journalist bashing.
You've linked a bunch of things we've talked about into something causal where they are only related by topic. The 'morality' clauses this article refers to are not the codes of ethics in more...
You've linked a bunch of things we've talked about into something causal where they are only related by topic.
The 'morality' clauses this article refers to are not the codes of ethics in more mature industries, which was the whole point of my original comment. The need for those codes of ethics in engineering for example are because if engineers screw up (like take bribes to sign off on shitty plans), people die. When journalists do things like write bullshit without checking sources because it suits an agenda, people can die from that too - such as when the result is someone being elected who guts national healthcare. That's where I'm saying the stakes are just as high for journalists and they should be held to a code of ethics just like other professions.
Assuming such a requirement survives a First Amendment challenge. Journalists have been printing arrant bullshit ever since Hearst was splashing "Remember the Maine" across newspapers, and getting...
Assuming such a requirement survives a First Amendment challenge. Journalists have been printing arrant bullshit ever since Hearst was splashing "Remember the Maine" across newspapers, and getting away with it for the most part. The news is provided on a "caveat emptor" basis. If you believe anything you read, watch, or hear from corporate media then you deserve to get fooled.
What challenge? This is exactly the same platform issue that sees people banned from things like Twitter with no 1st recourse (assuming the requirement comes from industry and not government)....
What challenge? This is exactly the same platform issue that sees people banned from things like Twitter with no 1st recourse (assuming the requirement comes from industry and not government).
Engineering used to be provided on a caveat emptor basis. Medical treatment too. It's a mark of the maturity of an industry to put in consumer protections.
The title of this article really needed some more thought in a world where most people don't read past it. The article itself is showing how what their contract requires isn't morality at all, but ensuring they don't ever lose in the court of public opinion.
Morals clauses have never been about morality. They're about making sure the talent doesn't embarrass anybody with unauthorized displays of humanity.
This is not true at all. Many professions have associate bodies who mandate codes of ethics, and many companies have following those codes as part of standard contracts - the most famous of those is likely doctors, but it's a thing in many other fields like engineering as well.
I think you're comparing apples to oranges. The stakes for the professions you want to compare with authors and entertainers are different, and often much higher.
The current political reality says the stakes for journos are pretty damn high, and they're failing.
How is the current political climate under the Trump regime relevant to the resurgence of corporations trying to con people into signing away their free speech rights as a condition for publication? As far as I'm concerned, it isn't, so you're just indulging in journalist bashing.
You've linked a bunch of things we've talked about into something causal where they are only related by topic.
The 'morality' clauses this article refers to are not the codes of ethics in more mature industries, which was the whole point of my original comment. The need for those codes of ethics in engineering for example are because if engineers screw up (like take bribes to sign off on shitty plans), people die. When journalists do things like write bullshit without checking sources because it suits an agenda, people can die from that too - such as when the result is someone being elected who guts national healthcare. That's where I'm saying the stakes are just as high for journalists and they should be held to a code of ethics just like other professions.
Assuming such a requirement survives a First Amendment challenge. Journalists have been printing arrant bullshit ever since Hearst was splashing "Remember the Maine" across newspapers, and getting away with it for the most part. The news is provided on a "caveat emptor" basis. If you believe anything you read, watch, or hear from corporate media then you deserve to get fooled.
What challenge? This is exactly the same platform issue that sees people banned from things like Twitter with no 1st recourse (assuming the requirement comes from industry and not government).
Engineering used to be provided on a caveat emptor basis. Medical treatment too. It's a mark of the maturity of an industry to put in consumer protections.