What is the ethical codes of journalism? Let's be sort this out. The time and place, and the context. Who is saying what and when -- let's say, which source is most trustworthy? Who's interested? On what political platform? Is it distorted on purposes, making their points? People believe in what they want to believe in. Just because Toyota cars sell well in the States, does not necessarily mean they should write negative articles on Japan. Its sales increased, despite the media attacks on its cars.
There will be no convincing argument if the view is partial. While there is no total subjectivity, the pros and cons must be stated clearly -- or vaguely for that matter. However crucial the sources are, there are things that should be known to the public, the debate should start from there. There are even cases that the source is limited for various reasons. In such cases, the only information source is from the oppositions, or the rival groups.
Indeed, those who would be keen on, the obstacles in passing the laws? Say, about the nuclear disarmament treaty and the ratification of it. What deters President Obama from signing it into laws? More often than not, the proponents would not know the reasons why. People tend to think favorably of their opinions -- never to allow even the inner opposition to speak out. Who in the whole world would ever endorse killing people in such an inhuman way, directly and indirectly by the slow death by radiation?
The reasons, should be cleared out, if you listen to the oppositions rather than the proponents. Are they talking about new weapons development -- how much would it cost? Where does the money go? Who are firmly insisting upon nuclear bomb tests, that have killed many, including the fishermen? Who are they? Did they participate in nuclear arms races between the States and Russia, in the cold war era? The splendor of the mushroom clouds -- do they realize how those dirty bombs damage the air, soils, water, and people? There still a "dead" lake in Siberia, created by detonation of an atomic bomb. The clear water of the lake -- the contaminated lake will never be of human use.
But for those who do not know what nuclear weapons are -- they are not informed right. It is hard to believe someone who show generosity in Haiti disaster ever not to think of how disastrous atomic weapons are. The damage is such that within the day, all living creatures will be wiped out within, say 1.2 km. People burn on to stones. Skins peel off, keloids all over, people rush to the river for water and die there. The radioactive materials, will be taken in to human bodies and stay there until the they destroy DNA in the cells around, causing cancers and killing them late in their life. Leukemia is a blood cancer that frequently caused by being exposed to radioactive materials. Indeed, people are still dying at nuclear test sites, by cancers and other diseases.
There will be no convincing argument if the view is partial. While there is no total subjectivity, the pros and cons must be stated clearly -- or vaguely for that matter. However crucial the sources are, there are things that should be known to the public, the debate should start from there. There are even cases that the source is limited for various reasons. In such cases, the only information source is from the oppositions, or the rival groups.
Indeed, those who would be keen on, the obstacles in passing the laws? Say, about the nuclear disarmament treaty and the ratification of it. What deters President Obama from signing it into laws? More often than not, the proponents would not know the reasons why. People tend to think favorably of their opinions -- never to allow even the inner opposition to speak out. Who in the whole world would ever endorse killing people in such an inhuman way, directly and indirectly by the slow death by radiation?
The reasons, should be cleared out, if you listen to the oppositions rather than the proponents. Are they talking about new weapons development -- how much would it cost? Where does the money go? Who are firmly insisting upon nuclear bomb tests, that have killed many, including the fishermen? Who are they? Did they participate in nuclear arms races between the States and Russia, in the cold war era? The splendor of the mushroom clouds -- do they realize how those dirty bombs damage the air, soils, water, and people? There still a "dead" lake in Siberia, created by detonation of an atomic bomb. The clear water of the lake -- the contaminated lake will never be of human use.
But for those who do not know what nuclear weapons are -- they are not informed right. It is hard to believe someone who show generosity in Haiti disaster ever not to think of how disastrous atomic weapons are. The damage is such that within the day, all living creatures will be wiped out within, say 1.2 km. People burn on to stones. Skins peel off, keloids all over, people rush to the river for water and die there. The radioactive materials, will be taken in to human bodies and stay there until the they destroy DNA in the cells around, causing cancers and killing them late in their life. Leukemia is a blood cancer that frequently caused by being exposed to radioactive materials. Indeed, people are still dying at nuclear test sites, by cancers and other diseases.