I was spooling down to type my version of this…it IS hypocritical, but it’s hardly Dobson-esque.
However, unusual enthusiasm in attacking homosexuality, particularly when there is fervent criticism of that irresistable lust for the cock that afflicts all straight men - that’s an indicator.
Yeah, I was thinking Gouda and Gorgonzola too.
Gin. At least according to my mom.
-Joe
Catholics are much more experienced with the guilt thing.
And gay priests, of course.
They may overlap, bump, touch, tease each other, and then keep bumping over and over and over again.
This is within the Venn diagram of shitty things reporters will do. Which is a lot. Another is put a slant on a story that isn’t they way you like it.
I don’t agree with that. I think many, perhaps most, reporters would not do something so unethical as did the reporter in this story.
You haven’t seen that clip where some bloke comes on to him? I’ll try to find it. Phelps is a raging queen.
Bite your tongue. Not like guacamole? You guys have me lusting after a BLTG sandwich, now - with the good, good guacamole. Mmmmm.
I hope you’re right. This is analogous to finding that the leader of an anti-alcohol movement is secretly a member of AA. From the perspective of his own worldview, Brock is doing exactly what he should be to combat his terrible propensity towards “sin.” Yes many of us, myself included, think he’s horribly misguided, but he is not a hypocrite. This story humiliates him to provide petty amusement to his critics.
I’m curious what the response of his peers will be. Quite possibly this will be a dud with them.
Main Entry:un£ethical
Pronunciation:*+
Function:adjective
: not conforming to approved standards of behavior, a socially accepted code, or professionally endorsed principles and practices unethical practices in the handling of public funds considered such advertising by physicians unethical
–un£ethically *+\ adverb
As far as I know, it is not against any professional principles of journalists. While it might be socially unacceptable, that is really a different kind of ethics.
These clauses from the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists may or may not apply:
“Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story.”
“Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.”
At a Catholic meeting, he’s also not likely to run into any of his own flock.
Then you should check out Jonathan Chance’s posts in this thread: Is it morally OK to betray the confidence of a support group if a gay member is publicly anti-gay?
At post 4 and post 23 he strongly expresses the opinion that the reporter’s behaviour is contrary to journalistic ethics. Since he’s a newspaper publisher in real life, I think his opinion is certainly worth considering.
He did violate the anonymity of one person: the pastor.
I honestly would not be surprised if the next headline is (a shortened form of) “Unethical journalist outed for every unethical thing he has done in his life. Worries his life may be in danger.”
I dunno. You go around making yourself the enemy of something that you yourself are a part of, and I think you pretty much throw away any hopes or expectations of privacy in that area of your life. I got no sympathy for him.
As for the reporter, did he out anyone else in the meeting, or just the guy who proclaimed his opposition for what he turned out to be?
But he now has acquired the knowledge about the others. THEY know that they are potentially compromised, dependent solely upon the reporter being satisfied with having got his real target, and not deciding at some point “Well, really, the whole idea of a ‘gay recovery’ group is so abhorrent that I should really expose the whole thing. They are all doing something wrong anyway”.
It is a conflictive thing, and surely, if you feel you are struggling against some “inner demon”, then maybe you should not be on the frontline of those strongly opposing that society and institutions work to accommodate those who are in the same position.
Why the hell not? He’s the perfect example for his cause–saying that someone does not have to accept being gay, and can fight his urges.
And I love how suddenly the morality of the guy’s actions now are important on whether the guy deserves privacy. I tried the same point with the kid being spied on by his school computer–saying that I cared more about whether the kid actually did something wrong (drug use) than the potential privacy violation. And I got beaten down for it.
As I said to YogSooth, I’ll say to you. To follow your logic, it would be okay for me to release your private information because I believe the position you are holding is immoral.
I’m sure if the mods here believed that, you’d be calling them out just as much as we are the journalist in this situation. But because it only affects THEM, not US, you’re okay with it.
gay
Okay, Hold it. Right. There.
How in the world have you come to that conclusion about what I wrote? I DON’T follow YOUR logic.
Lemme see if I can clarify:
I am saying: the reporter has, through his deception, breached the integrity of the group and the private citizens in it are now at the mercy of ***his ***deciding it’s moral to go after the rest of them, having shown he thought so about the one. The reporter should have found a way to follow his story that would not compromise third parties (as mentioned in the ethical guidelines, upthread).
But that’s why I said it’s conflictive: do you feel it should be nobody’s business and better handled discreetly and quietly, in qhich case you have to ponder whether you call attention to yourself by being a standard-bearer for the opposition under the tacit assumption that you are NOT “afflicted” yourself, or could you be even more effective by being open and frank to begin with about “struggling with the problem” . He’s in a sadly no-win spot.