Comments for Edward Wasserman's Blog

Comment on Sex, lies, and the pregnancy that never was by Jon Rock

Jon Rock — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:00:21 +0000

Whether she learned anything about being pregnant and her peers reaction that is authentic is hard to believe. Her state of mind was completely different. However as an experiment in personal deception of others I am sure it will inform her actions for life.

Comment on Sex, lies, and the pregnancy that never was by edwardwasserman

edwardwasserman — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:06:57 +0000

I was unclear about the stereotypes precisely because Gaby was unclear about them in the numerous statements and interviews she gave. As for expertise in research ethics, if indeed it was “research” she was conducting, I think the notion of informed consent is the principle that was at issue, and it’s a pretty basic concept that is familiar to anybody who studies professional ethics, regardless of which profession they focus on. So I reject your reproach, on my behalf and Jack Marshall’s.

Comment on Sex, lies, and the pregnancy that never was by Ernie Beckley

Ernie Beckley — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:10:12 +0000

In your article, you stated you were unclear about precisely which stereotypes she was battling. Perhaps you should have made yourself more clear about her exact intent for this exercise before writing this article.

Furthermore, your colleague (Harris Meyer) is just another journalist. While the both of you might be experts in journalistic ethics, I fail to see how that makes either of you experts in scientific ethics. Your other source, Jack Marshall, is a legal/business ethicist, again not necessarily an expert in scientific ethics. What this means is, in the end, your article is nothing more than your personal opinion, which requires no expertise whatsoever.

By the way, I am not defending what Ms. Rodriguez did. I am simply saying you are in no better place to judge her than I. Next time you write such an article, you should consider doing more research, and lining up better, more credible experts. That way, your words might actually carry some weight.

Comment on Sex, lies, and the pregnancy that never was by Harris Meyer

Harris Meyer — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:56:59 +0000

It should be noted that the Milgram experiment helped prompt the development of tougher rules for human experimentation in academia and the establishment of institutional review boards. People knowledgable about research ethics say the Gaby Rodriguez “social experiment,” if conducted in a university setting, very likely would not have received institutional review board approval. And I’d say high school students are even more vulnerable and in need of protection from potentially harmful experiments than university students are.

Comment on The dubious value of primary debates by edwardwasserman

edwardwasserman — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:42:58 +0000

Interesting point. They do have value, to be sure. I think you could also argue that they have weeded out some candidates by exposing their lack of preparation and the gaps in their knowledge base. Gov. Perry’s lapses, for instance, do seem to indicate basic deficiencies in his fitness for high office.

Comment on The dubious value of primary debates by Gary Wasserman

Gary Wasserman — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:26:03 +0000

One other point is that the debates may actually improve the candidates ability to communicate. Obama admits, and others agree, that he was a far worse debater/speaker at the beginning of his series of 2008 debates than he was at the end. Hillary killed him at the initial encounters until he caught up with her. Thinking on your feet in front of a TV camera is not a bad skill for a president.
GW

Comment on The new world order comes to news by Janice Mcdonald

Janice Mcdonald — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 01:22:14 +0000

To those of you who understand and are familiar with new world order do you believe it has began ?

Comment on A move toward media transparency in campaign spending by Robert

Robert — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:22:55 +0000

Great post! For years I’ve maintained and written that one way to fix this corruption by removing most of the money and promotes fairness would be to have a series of debates while setting a limit on how much could be spent on any given level of campaigning. For example, free debates for all potential candidates, followed by two “vote-offs” (a 2-step primary) that would reduce the field over several months of debates followed by votes. During each round, each candidate gets to spend a maximum of say, $10-15K on ads. Attack, promote your own view, whatever. But once that limit is hit, NO MORE ADS. For those who say that’s unfair given the expense of NYC and LA ad prices, I would say that since broadcasters are using PUBLIC airwaves, let them ALL give reduced rates to candidates. If “Sweet 16″ playoffs work in basketball, why not run our elections that way, and cap the amount each candidate could spend during any given cycle? Free debates = free speech. As for corporations and “free speech,” to quote something that’s sprung to life lately, “I’ll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.”

Comment on A move toward media transparency in campaign spending by Edward

Edward — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:10:50 +0000

Dear Mr. Wasserman:

Congratulations on your insightful column on campaign financing which ran in today’s Miami Herald. I have long thought that one helpful step in reducing the political dependence on big dollars would be to make political campaign advertisements a public service for those who receive broadcast licenses. TV advertising is obviously one of the major campaign expenditures. If it was eliminated or the immediate effective disclosure of who are buying such ads were required it would greatly improve the health of the campaign financing malady. I hope you will use your public pen to continue to promote the idea.

Very truly yours,

Edward Carhart, Esq.

Comment on A move toward media transparency in campaign spending by Jeffrey Dvorkin

Jeffrey Dvorkin — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:15:16 +0000

Excellent post Ed. Another factor that both the NAB and public broadcasters in the US have opposed is something that has long existed in other, English speaking democracies: the concept of “free time” and “paid time” political broadcasting. In the UK and Canada all political parties with seats in the House of Commons are eligible for airtime that is proportional to the number of votes obtained in the last election. Political parties with no legislative representation can still have access to the public broadcaster, but in a smaller amount. The public broadcasters (the CBC or the BBC) negotiate with each party and approves all scripts in advance (to assure that there is nothing slanderous or libelous in what is to be broadcast). Usually, the parties’ free time access is in non-prime hours. Paid time is allowed in prime time.