ON THE WATER
NEELS BLOM: Washington Post mohair story pulls wool over readers’ eyes
When the Washington Post elevated Peta’s investigator to reporter, the rigours of journalistic ethics started applying
The oddest part of the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) is the inclusion in its name of the word ethical, a concept without which the dichotomy of good and evil cannot be apprehended. Odd — and brave — because it declares ethics, the assessment of right and wrong conduct, as its defining principle and one by which it must fall or flourish. Peta agitates against cruelty to animals by humans, arguing that the suffering of animals is unnecessary and avoidable in the exploitation of animal products. This, it says, is achievable by following a set of absolute (as opposed to habitual) rules in human interaction with animals. Journalists share the sentiment. The assessment of right and wrong conduct is arguably also its primary occupation and perhaps the greatest source of misery for the perpetrators of the craft. Yet, despite the temptation to avoid applying their code of conduct for the sake of expedience, budgetary constraints or any number of the p...
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Subscribe now to unlock this article.
Support BusinessLIVE’s award-winning journalism for R129 per month (digital access only).
There’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in SA. Our subscription packages now offer an ad-free experience for readers.
Cancel anytime.
Questions? Email helpdesk@businesslive.co.za or call 0860 52 52 00. Got a subscription voucher? Redeem it now.