Chris Russo writes:
> > I found the original article to be somewhat
> > we-try-hard-to-be-objective-although-naturally-we're-not-ish,
> > so here is a link to another article on this issue - a bit
> > better from my point of view:
> Ugh, but The Register's
> all-corporations-and-governments-are-out-to-screw-you point of view
> is more objective? :)
No, of course not!
I like The Register specifically because they don't try to be objective.
It's obvious what their bias is, and they relate stories in provocative ways
that give one something to think about. Most other news sources are, well...
just plain dull, and they make it much harder for one to see what their bias
> >Everyone entering Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, Florida last
> >Sunday was subjected to the surveillance system cameras, set up at
> >the entrance turnstiles. No notice or disclosure was ever given, and
> >no one, therefore, had an opportunity to decline to enter the
> >stadium if they should have objected to this unprecedented treatment.
> Why would having extra security at a big event like the Super Bowl be
> a reason to give notice? Were they doing brain scans or illegally
> tapping cell phones or something? Would having extra officers there
> have been a reason to give notice? Of course not.
I don't necessarily agree with the opinions of this reporter on this issue.
However, I find it very good that they wrote the article the way they did.
With that kind of media coverage (vs the "objective"
we-don't-care-we-just-report-it kind of coverage), people are more likely to
think seriously about such issues, to spot any misuse of these potentially
dangerous technologies, and to make those who are responsible answer for any
questionable decisions before it is too late.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:34 MDT