You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Price Of Liberty
I'm chronically out of time, so I can't delve too deep in there with you ;-) I did read your article however, and must say I like the premise a lot. I don't think the theme you chose is too difficult. I believe you explained very clearly what "risk journalism" entails and the 13 "resistance choices" you lay out are pretty straightforward too; as they should be in a functional democracy :-) Here's my score:
- W2
- W7
- W2
- W9
- W1
- W6
- W10
- W5
- W9
- W0
- W10
- W3
- W7
Like I said: the premise is great and I agree that this more nuanced way of making choices should lead to a lot less friction in the democratic process. Makes one wonder: why don't proposals like these ever really see the light of day?
Cool, thank you!
As we are now 4 people, I evaluated our results and here they are:
The least resistance was here:
"Risk journalism is needed"
which obviously doesn't say a thing about the quality. But included other statements, it does give also information about it, as the second place with the least resistance is:
"Risk journalists should consider scientists as well as laymen and other professionals in their reporting"
And rank 3 in the least resistance is this proposal, which I find really interesting:
"Sensationalism is harmful to every publication in risk journalism, even though a reporting contains correct facts & figures".
How on earth can majority voting come to such a result if one is forced to choose for only one thing? I am glad you got the idea immediately. So, if a chief editor makes a research on what his readers would like to read, this would be a great method to find that out.
For the sake of better seeing our dialogue I give myself a vote. Which I normally don't do.
Again, thank you so much!
I wonder. Maybe because people only follow what they already know?
Internet is empty on this term. It's an unused one. And maybe people mostly talk but don't invest time in things which need more effort than usually.