Lightknight said:Forgive me but the kind of tabloids I think of are just garbage peddlers that don't actually do any investigative reporting on their own? Maybe the Daily Mail really is something above tabloid but below mainstream legitimate journalism?
Sort of. We have the 'pure' tabloids like The Sun, The Daily Star, and The Mirror; ones which make no effort to hide sensationalism, and fill themselves with celebrity gossip and rubbish like that. The Daily Mail isn't quite like that, and does do investigative journalism, though it's often of the muck-racking kind. Wiki describes it as "middle-market"; I would describe it as having pretences in that direction.
Professional consequences are really indivisible from professional actions. What actions one takes (politically or professionally) must have consequences if people are to be accountable, and it's pretty fundamental to a free market that we may choose to whom our money goes. It's understandable and right that we need not support somebody we do not wish to.Lightknight said:So then you are providing a qualification in which harm really isn't relevant because it is "in the public interest"? I seriously doubt that how a person votes (individually) or what causes they support are truly in the public interest unless they're throwing large numbers at it. Don't you consider it somewhat dangerous rhetoric to trivialize the social and financial forms of harm in pursuit of justifying causing harm to some but not others? I'd consider a far more internally consistent philosophy to be against unnecessary harm of all rather than just some.
That's difficult to judge-- people may recognise her (in the street, even) after media attention, whereas they wouldn't have done before.Lightknight said:There's potential danger in anything involving one's identity and affiliations. If Lily was presenting in public, was she not already taking on said danger? The idea is that if it was already happening in public then the subject is already assuming the risks/responsibility. Again, that's the point of if it is done in public then it is fair game to report. Can things go wrong? Yes. But society has changed a great deal and most of the ignorant assholes that would cause her harm are too dumb to read any paper and would likely only attack if she were presenting (poorly), not just because they read something some time. At least that's how things seem to go, not someone planning to go somewhere and do someone harm just because they heard about them on the news or whatever.
There's more than one public sphere. One's workplace is one thing; the country another, and both involve uniquely different risks and threats. You may (rightly) say that if you take on one, you risk the other, but the risk of that is low without media interference.
I've appreciated yours, too. I haven't found it tedious, but I do think we've probably put across our thoughts as well as we're going to at this point.Lightknight said:It's a bit more tricky of a situation than that, to admit fault could open them up to liability. If they consulted a lawyer they would have advised them to not talk about it and if they had to to not admit guilt which could be used against them later.
But sure, they could be total social bottom feeders. I don't know if you feel like we could benefit from continued discourse, it seems like both our stances have been made but I don't want to waste your time if you've begun to find this tedious. I have appreciated your effort and input throughout.