Having just passed the new Institutional Review Board (IRB) test got me wondering: Why don’t journalists have to do this, let alone their editors (who, after all, set the agenda, “alt” or not)?
The idea that experimental subjects have rights was started by the United Nations and promoted by human-rights activist Eleanor Roosevelt (who didn’t like the United States using information from Holocaust victims, no less).
Ethical training is especially needed by the New York Times, the “paper of record,” which, at least in this one article, was practicing “alt” ethics (promoting parents who teach their young how to discriminate against vulnerable people while they’re still in single digits).
This one even comes with a photo of this so-called nurturing mom, and then publishes some “alt” rubbish (that later contradicts it) articulating the absurd argument that providing elevators to mass transit can be considered unsafe in these terrorist-provoking Trump times.
Why does the NYT feature this overt parental prejudice, and publish the vulnerable child’s photo too? The only fact in the piece is how this is bunk (duh!) and that NYC mass transit is worse than that in other cities (another duh). So what’s new or news?