From the editorial board
We live in unprecedented times. The business-as-usual model does not necessarily apply. We believe and accept that freedom of expression is a right. But it is also a tool and if used recklessly or without forethought, those in authority can easily send the wrong message and endanger people. And this includes the media.
It is an accepted maxim in journalism that media outlets should report the news objectively, in the name of Public Interest. And further, that they should try to present you, the reader, with a wide enough variety of viewpoints to inform you so that you may draw your own enlightened conclusions.
In a perfect world, bias would not exist and all readers would have the ability to critically evaluate information. I think it’s safe to say that there are very few impartial media outlets left in the world today. And as individuals, we all have bias. Add in the fast pace of social media “reporting” to the mix and the line between reporting news and expressing opinion is vanishingly thin. Media outlets can unwittingly condone something, or be seen to do so, by the very act of reporting on it.
And sometimes, they just do. When space is used to encourage activities that put the general population at risk, reckless reporting is no longer in the public interest.
Authority figures have a responsibility, during critical times, to handle matters of public safety and public information with extreme caution.
- Ensuring that we quote experts who are recognized as bona fide authorities in their fields of expertise
- Providing context
- Anticipating reader’s questions and trying to answer them
- Being transparent about bias as an outlet or as a journalist
The Seeker has been clear from the get go. We have bias. We side with science and we will not be a tool to distribute or promote Covid propaganda in any way, shape or form. Paid or unpaid.
We have to report the facts; not as we would like them to be or as we fear they could become but as they are.
So here are the facts: while having a constitutional right to protest, marchers broke the law by hosting an event with more than 100 unmasked people present, who were not socially “distanced”. In direct opposition to public health recommendations, they adopt, and unfailingly promote, dangerous behaviours that put everybody in the general population at risk.
And if given the chance, they will continue to do so by holding bigger and bolder events, with the help of published sparkly invitations, all wrapped up with a pretty bow labelled “news”.
Is this really in the public’s interest?