Comments for Ethical Martini

Comment on Baby herbal soup update by PrecioLandia UK

PrecioLandia UK — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:29:43 +0000

I happened to hear some of this baby soup nonsense. As disgusted as I am, I wonder about the capacity of other human beings to create such a vile site as charonboat. It tells you a lot about the future of humanity.

Comment on From “hate media” to another fine mess: How media reform got derailed by Stephen Conroy vs Daily Telegraph | belindawilliamssite

Stephen Conroy vs Daily Telegraph | belindawilliamssite — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 05:12:24 +0000

[...] Image from: Hirst, M 2013, From ‘hate media’ to another fine mess: How media reform got derailed, accessed 26/3/13 http://ethicalmartini.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/from-hate-media-to-another-fine-mess-how-media-reform… [...]

Comment on Baby herbal soup update by kathy

kathy — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 15:31:07 +0000

I saw that on my facebook newsfeed. And it really broke my heart. Thinking that it was actually true. I was really sad because i knew i couldn’t save the babies. But i do see i alot of sick people on my facebook newsfeed hurting and abusing their child and i really wanted to help them. Sometimes i don’t open.my facebook account because i am afraid that i would see horrible things being done to children and other people. They shouldn’t really allow those horrible things on facebook, because its sad that we can’t do anything.to help them. I even emailed the cnn news about an infant being horribly abuse by the his own parents, but nothing they didn’t answer back. Guess they don’t care at all about that. Anyways i am so glad that baby herbal soup is not true. Thanks for making a post that confirmed that it wasn’t true.

Comment on Baby herbal soup update by olderthandirt

olderthandirt — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 20:40:07 +0000

Crap. How did I miss it? It is FIVE(5) +1 W’s: Who, What, Where, When, Why, and if possible, hoW. I missed it twice in the same post. I forgot “When” in the first paragraph, but covered it in the second paragraph, and missed “Why” in the last paragraph. I’m sorry for causing any confusion, but it HAS been greater than 30 years since I’ve taken a journalism course. Never the less, those old rules are good ones, that should be resurrected.

Comment on Baby herbal soup update by olderthandirt

olderthandirt — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 20:28:39 +0000

The problem, EM, is that people no longer demand real journalism. Nowadays, it’s all about sensationalistic magazine style articles. In the old days, a newspaper article had to have the 4 (+1) W’s in the first paragraph. Who, What, Where, Why, and if possible, hoW. If all of the W’s were not satisfied in the first paragraph, and then supported in the subsequent paragraphs, the article would be flatly rejected by the editor, as would any story that is not independently verifiable. If the reporter repeatedly failed to measure up to those standards, he/she would be fired. Why? While it is great to be the FIRST to break a story, as being first boosts circulation, it is journalistic hell to be the ONLY one carrying a story that is not verified by other publications in their subsequent editions, as a news outlet’s reputation stands on its credibility. Who truly believes that Marilyn Monroe is still alive and raising her children that were sired by a space alien? Yet such stories show up in “Check Stand Tabloids.”
The article in The Seoul Times fails to satisfy Who, When, and Where. “Someone” or “a factory manager,” or other nebulous or nondescript identification does NOT satisfy the requirement of ‘Who.” “A town in the southern province of Canton (Guangdong) is now in focus…” does NOT satisfy the requirement of “Where.” What town? Guangdong is a large province. If the town is in focus, then it should be easily identified. Back to “Who,” by whom is it in focus? The authorities? The mainstream press? And, WHEN did this occur? The article gives no indication of the time frame in relation to the submission of the email. It could have happened the day before, or even a decade or two before. Without these three key pieces of information, the story CANNOT be independently verified. Also, as the article seems to be linking this practice to abortion and female infanticide associated with China’s “one child” rules, how does Taiwan fit into the picture, as it is a separate country with no rule on the number of children that one is allowed to have?
So, if The Seoul Times were a legitimate journalistic publication, it would have rejected the article. Also, where is the by-line? Instead, it is posted under “Letters to the editor,” a place usually reserved for opinions on current issues (often called “The Opinion Page”) submitted by the readers. Here we have an “opinion” submitted to the editor, with no signature or place of origin, but evidence that it was written by a reporter, and even claims that the report “confirms” the story. So the email is both the story AND it’s own confirmation. They clearly state that it is an email report, which would indicate that it was sent by one of their own reporters. But which one? Why was THEIR reporter’s story put BY THE EDITOR on the opinion page without identifying the reporter or supplying a by-line? Why did the editor let all journalistic standards slide? Why was such an amazing news story not put out on the wire-services like Reuters or AP to be distributed to the rest of the world of journalism? Such a report, if legitimate, would light up both print and broadcast media outlets around the world. Instead, we are given a Tabloid style headline: Chinese Eat Baby Soup for Sex, and a subtitle: One Baby Policy Blamed for Killing Babies in China. In the article, the only reference to the One Child Policy is a reference to a quotation by an unnamed local (I assume from Guangdong, unless they meant local to Seoul) reporter.
Ultimately, most, if not all, of the stories on The Seoul TImes are “editorial” in nature, and not akin to classical journalism. That said, this story obviously ended up on THEIR opinion page because it didn’t even measure up to their rather low standards. So remember, readers: “no person, no location, no time-frame,… no story.” ALL elements, including Who, What, Where, When, and if possible, hoW, must be present for a legitimate news article, AND, they must be independently verifiable. So file this story along with the cannibal zombie invasion of Moscow.

Comment on Release Alan Johnston by Alta

Alta — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 08:05:23 +0000

My partner and I absolutely love your blog and find many of your
post’s to be exactly what I’m looking for. Do you offer guest writers to write content available
for you? I wouldn’t mind creating a post or elaborating on many of the subjects you write in relation to here. Again, awesome website!

[EM responds, I am 85% sure this is spam blowing smoke up my arse, but “Yes, I do appreciate guest posts. If you want to post contact me via email
ethicalmartini AT gmail.etc

Comment on Australian Jihad: Now you read it, now you don’t by Email Enough

Email Enough — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 04:10:42 +0000

I *have* read this book, and although disturbed by its contents and the manner in which our Government appear to have been ***blind*** to what was going on inside Australia and outside, they were not quite so slow to have the book “pulped” That is one way to hide the truth from the Australian public.

Comment on Over the falls in a barrell – smooth-talking Corbett doesn’t let facts get in the way at Fairfax AGM by haitheory

haitheory — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:11:49 +0000

Newspapers are about mind control, not about real information, and people are wising up.

Comment on Baby herbal soup update by raine

raine — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 01:21:18 +0000

this so pathetic..bullshit!!! go to hell…insane people….!!!!

Comment on Thank you for your comment…now piss off back to Where-everstan! by Imagine Your News « 730reportland

Imagine Your News « 730reportland — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:12:45 +0000

[...] But I’m not the only one [...]