Intergalactic Summit

As I feel I'm partly the cause of this discussion, I'll shine my light on it.

The statement I made in that thread considering my 'journalistic integrity'



In the end, each Empire has it's own idea of Journalistic integrity, from Gallente free press, to Amarr certified news, a consensus on 'proper' journalism will never be reached due to the different worldviews that exists. Myself, I go by the State's credo that the community goes before the individual when I write articles, meaning that whatever I write does not exist to solely glorify an individual, but benefits my readers as a whole as an informative & pleasant article.

Not speaking of any specific news agency, but of the institution of journalism:

I believe the imperative falls upon the consumer of journalistic media to weigh the information critically, and be wary of bias. While I believe it is ethical of journalistic enterprises to disclose their biases publicly, we as consumers of media should not accept the information presented to us without question.

I don't believe that professional journalists should involve themselves personally in the matters they report, but that won't keep such involvement from happening, and the fact that journalists must 'fire in self-defense' just speaks to the lowly state of affairs in the cluster.

In the specific case of Mlle Ymladris, I surmise that she is a capsuleer first and a journalist second, and I don't really feel that an ethical boundary of some kind was violated.

Press depicts events, not creates them.
If the press have to make event itself just to describe it, it means they are amateurs and can't do professional work.

I think it would be a great loss for the cluster if Gutter Press suddenly started to worry about journalistic standards.

True. Infamous is giving you a bit much of credit.

I believe that the press should, ideally, maintain distance from whatever it is that they are reporting. However, in a case of such blatant atrocity such as that committed by the aforementioned Nauplius, it raises a huge moral question: it is in itself an act of evil to fail to act for good?

If a journalist chooses to act out of a sense of her own morality, I have no problem with that. However, it is all the more essential that she be transparent about it: name sources, admit involvement, lay it all out, and that way we, the readers, can review the subsequent story with open eyes. Honesty is the way to maintain journalistic integrity in such a case.

Do as you will. If you can't contain the urge to speak publically, tell the truth as you find it. For your own sake, not the sake of others, because the first person you lie to will always be yourself.

Mr. Nauplius, we had today discussion in "Intergalactic Summic" NeoCom channel, and it involved this "terror" affair. So, I would like to clarify my position about this and ask about your disposition towards terrorism.

I understand, that many uneducated speakers often use word "terrorist" as a slur, but I assure you, that I don't want to insult you or anyone else, and if I will do this, it won't be for a purpose, but rather accidentally. I hope we will understand each other, and if I will do anything wrong, I would ask you to point out what exactly I said wrong. But right now I would like to concentrate on objective facts.

For me, terrorism isn't a crime or insult, but a low-quality form of warfare, that is targeted to inflict fear on your targets instead of their physical elimination or achievement of other specific physical goal. As one of my drill instructors were telling me, "terrorism is a poor man's war".

My question to you is whether your attack on the slaves was a terror, or had other function. Because from my point of view, elimination of such number of supposedly innocent (like many on these forums told - I am not sure whether this was true or not, I never saw their dossiers) people, is the act of terror: their deaths should inflict fear into hearts of other minmatars to stop them from fighting (or something else).

But then, what is exactly wrong with them calling you a terrorist? If it is a lie, then you should just clarify, that it is a lie, because you haven't committed acts of terror.
If you have used terror tactics, then they would sully themselves only if you consider word "terrorist" as a slur. But this is a gallentean point of view with their twisted morals. If you remove gallenteans from the equation, then you will have only type of warfare, that you have or have not used on minmatars. And thus calling you terrorist won't be sullying, just as calling pilots people, who fly ships, and calling fighters those, who do fight.

Thus, if you have indeed used this type of warfare, you could quite legally add "Terrorist" to your list of titles, and signify yourself like, for example "Nauplius, Prophet of God and Terrorist of Minmatar people", that would show, that you inflict fear to hearts of minmatars with your actions.

This is true, however,

First hand accounts are always the most reliable. If the journalist was not present, then their account is not nearly as credible. I personally enjoy reading Ms. Ymladris's work, and appreciate her dedication. She does her best to be as involved as possible.

On site recording is the truest form of journalism.

Second hand information is simply copying records.

The former is what Ms. Ymladris does, and should continue to do. Even when she cannot be on site, she still investigates rather thoroughly before publishing. A true professional.