phil, that's fine, but it doesn't address how the people on this board might define the ethics. red offers something, but many on this board and elsewhere like to use a broadbrush approach to this subject when discussing it. it's not a sore spot, red, but it is amusing to me. you see, none of this is new. this is the same old same old that has been going on for a couple hundred years in this country. with each generation there are new complaints about the press. yet, as i have pointed out before, much of what you discuss here would not be possible without the very press that many revile. it's ironic. does that mean you should not criticize, not at all. but as phil has offered a link to the spj, i would hope that those who commment here would do two things: one, read the comments on ethics, and two please offer up a list what some of you presumed to be ethics in journalism without benefit of a society ethical mission statement. i think it would be interesting to see what you come up with.
as far as the photos of children, red, i suppose it depends upon the context. as far as harry goes, if you're saying drudge was the one to out harry, then frankly you can't say the msm outted him, really. but i would also add that there are far too many brits, journalists and civilians alike, that i have talked with who are tired of the treatment the royals get. if one of our celebs - the royals are just celebs, frankly - went over there you all know damn well it would be covered. make it right? well, probably not. but then again, why don't we just stop writing about all the soldiers, and leave the war to the chickenhawks. oh, wait, that's what the bush administration has been trying to get us to all along.
