The NYTimes spread lies to the American people about WMDs that supported the mobilisation towards war. Afterwards it faced public criticism and as a result it had reforms to the way it publishes the news. They created the office of the public editor to increase their ethical standards.
Was it bad that public pressure changed their news-making in that regard? It seems to me obvious that it’s good when public critcism leads a news outlet to increase their ethical standards.
Whenever an organization has the choice to engage in an action that brings them short term economic benefits (clicks) at the expense of social value for broader society, it’s important when public pressure can change the organization to engage in more ethical behavior.
I believe that the arguments in this op-ed—about why philosophers shouldn’t use petitions to adjudicate their disputes—also apply to those non-philosophers who, for independent reasons, are committed to the power of public reason.
The kind of means you use to adjudicate disputes depends on both parties.
If I would believe that the NYTimes is commited to the power of public reason, then I would grant that reasoned argument is a better vehicle then a petition. I do however believe that the NYTimes cares more about making money for it’s shareholders then it cares for public reason.
If anybody wants to make an argument that public reason is more important for the NYTimes then profits, I would be happy to see examples where the NYTimes decided to engage in actions that were neither good for clicks nor their reputation and that can be explained by caring for public reason.
Lastly, I think that philosophers as a class should exert more public pressure on institutions that engage in behavior that violates the knowledge that the philosophers gathered. Philosophers should do petitions about how the ontological assumptions of the DSM-5 are appalling.
The NYTimes spread lies to the American people about WMDs that supported the mobilisation towards war. Afterwards it faced public criticism and as a result it had reforms to the way it publishes the news. They created the office of the public editor to increase their ethical standards.
Was it bad that public pressure changed their news-making in that regard? It seems to me obvious that it’s good when public critcism leads a news outlet to increase their ethical standards.
Whenever an organization has the choice to engage in an action that brings them short term economic benefits (clicks) at the expense of social value for broader society, it’s important when public pressure can change the organization to engage in more ethical behavior.
From Agnes Twitter:
The kind of means you use to adjudicate disputes depends on both parties.
If I would believe that the NYTimes is commited to the power of public reason, then I would grant that reasoned argument is a better vehicle then a petition. I do however believe that the NYTimes cares more about making money for it’s shareholders then it cares for public reason.
If anybody wants to make an argument that public reason is more important for the NYTimes then profits, I would be happy to see examples where the NYTimes decided to engage in actions that were neither good for clicks nor their reputation and that can be explained by caring for public reason.
Lastly, I think that philosophers as a class should exert more public pressure on institutions that engage in behavior that violates the knowledge that the philosophers gathered. Philosophers should do petitions about how the ontological assumptions of the DSM-5 are appalling.