My Manifesto: The Incoherent Ramblings of a Madman

Read it again ya dick ;)


~ Siobhan
 

I have read it.
 

Media Code of Ethics

1. Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis. Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply.

2. Do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics, including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family relationships, religious belief, or physical or intellectual disability.

3. Aim to attribute information to its source. Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the source’s motives and any alternative attributable source. Where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances.

4. Do not allow personal interest, or any belief, commitment, payment, gift or benefit, to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence.

5. Disclose conflicts of interest that affect, or could be seen to affect, the accuracy, fairness or independence of your journalism. Do not improperly use a journalistic position for personal gain.

6. Do not allow advertising or other commercial considerations to undermine accuracy, fairness or independence.

7. Do your utmost to ensure disclosure of any direct or indirect payment made for interviews, pictures, information or stories.

8. Use fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material. Identify yourself and your employer before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast. Never exploit a person’s vulnerability or ignorance of media practice.

9. Present pictures and sound which are true and accurate. Any manipulation likely to mislead should be disclosed.

10. Do not plagiarise.

11. Respect private grief and personal privacy. Journalists have the right to resist compulsion to intrude.

12. Do your utmost to achieve fair correction of errors.

I'm not sure they're up to par on number 6. Otherwise they should have either not written the story or disclosed that there is an ulterior motive behind it.
 

what do you think is the alterior motive in this story?

you do realise that the needle, not being the SOURCE of the HIV for the infected child, could still have easily infected the other children, because the infected childs blood would have been on it?

children or not, who cares. take it as being an adult coming to work and pricking people, possibly transferring AIDS - they still would have written the story, and have done so in the past.
As for the drugs they are taking to slow the virus just in case they do have it, that has been common practice for years.
 

Indeed. There is a possibility, however, the HIV virus dies as soon as the blood is dried. Various drugs have been common used for years. I still believe, however, that the story is overhyped tripe. It is not a newsworthy story or even a story of news.