For the last month many have been horrified by the new lows plowed into the Gutter-Journalism by Irresponsible Reporting (the whole bullying affair, the burning of the Koran, etc). Yes, 'Freedom of Speech' is important, that does not confer a "freedom to disseminate" anything that might sell papers/advertising.

I have any intention of protecting the right of self-satisfied, smug, gutter-trash journalists to give a public platform to right-wing ratbags (with the entirely predictable & horrible results) or to those seeking, reprehensibly, to make a quid off sensationalized youtube vision of children fighting (which will also have terrible consequences, albeit, not to the "journalists"). Yes, we all have a right to say what we think, within fairly reasonable limits. What right does ANYONE have to report (a) stupidity; (b) child-exploitation; & (c) things that will get other people killed (quite predictably).

Those with the responsibility to provide the public with information also have a responsibility to ensure that information is presented fairly and accurately. They also have an obligation to ignore hate-speech, pornography & that which is illegal (such as that involving children), for the good of society. The balancing of these obligations, little thing called ethics, is a big part of becoming a Journalist (although everyone tends to forget this in favor of free-speech when the "journalists" want to make a point). I dislike the idiot in America that burned the Koran (basically for being a bigoted idiot pushing his agenda at others expense), however, the blame for what happened and the lives of those killed should be laid at the feet of the gutter "journalists" that caused it to happen.

There has to be limits to what one can say is "fair", burning paper to make an imbecilic statement? Bigotry, yes - also irrelevant. Giving someone a publicity platform to do so, to make a point at the expense of others? Purely for headlines/ratings/sales? No, that is reprehensible and I'd like to register my disgust.

One question, Aaron 1975: Do you also feel the same horror & disgust about what Wikileaks is doing?

Stop watching the Corp media trash and don't buy their papers.Look at the independant media on the web.

But then, should we be giving the media the responsibility to decide what is reported? I'd rather they report EVERYTHING, than what they deem 'beneficial'.

I don't like the 'news'. Much of it is rubbish, but I decide what I read and see and I decide the validity and value of that content to my life. And the thing is, so does everyone else. What I consider news, others might just bypass just the same as I might bypass what they read. Why should 'you' decide that for me?

Skip the Murdoch rubbish, and channels 7,9,10; you've filtered down the gutter journalism quite a bit. Especially now the internet provides us online access to the much better news institutes like Reuters and BBC- (not to mention Wikileaks if its a political scandal).
Generally these days watching news requires a certain amount of independent rational thought to analyze and criticize the information:
People with a group mentality (eg they are part of "the Left" or "the right"- will simply not be able to handle it.

As to Wikileaks, to the extent Assange put the lives of others at risk, simply so he would be seen as an "Enemy of the State" (rather than a homosexual child molester) yes, I disagree strongly with it. As to any other aspect of Wikileaks, the principle was put in the Spy-cases in England. If Authorities don't want information published, they should ensure it is not available to the Press. The vast bulk of the material in Wikileaks is actually dull and uninteresting, so much so, that no-one is going to trawl through the sludge of boring crud to actually find the few gems inside. Too much chaff, not enough wheat, in fact most are allowing the larger news agencies (who pay people to trawl through it) to describe the juicy bits, which allows the same to restrict information.

As to filtering what is reported, there are filters on what is reported already. Those filters include child pornography, snuff films, overt calls for violence, etc. I cannot see the public benefit in providing some right-wing imbecile with a public platform to do what he did & with the results that were only too predictable.

I have little time for "shock jocks" and their ilk, promoting f*wits who seek to gain national & international exposure by doing childish things, which are calculated to draw a violent response (at the cost of the lives of others) is despicable. Doing so purely to lift ratings, sales or advertising should be criminal.

It would rate right up there with using explicit child images as page X material to get the rockspider audience to purchase papers. It is exploitative, it harms others who cannot help themselves and it should come under manslaughter. Doing an act which they can be presumed to know will result in the serious wounding or death of another, without taking every reasonable attempt to prevent the same - and which does result in the death of another person - is Negligent Manslaughter or Homicide.

Watching the same media 'stalwarts' crying crocodile tears over the deaths they caused almost made me vomit.