Smoking ban in Germany spurns crafty workarounds

Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.

Does not journalism at the very least entail a fiduciary duty to readers, listeners, watchers, to be given all the sides and facts and contrary opinions so that the public is as informed as possible to decide for themselves ?

When asked plainly, without reference to any specific story or issue, I believe most people would agree it does, regardless of what the story or issue is.

Then, I ask, why is the world's entire news mediae and journalists refusing to report all sides of the second hand tobacco smoke issue ?

Why is the entire global news industry refusing to inform the public that there are many researchers, scientists, even doctors and politicians, and millions of tax paying voters who do NOT believe the anti-smoking claims about second hand tobacco smoke ?

It's not like most journalists and news sources are not aware of that fact. They simply deliberately refuse to inform the public of it.

And, by not doing so, the news industry deliberately and knowingly violates it's Fiduciary Duty to the public.

Some day, there will be an accounting for this deliberate act of suppression of information.

Steve Hartwell
Toronto, Canada
www.reducedriskcigarettes.ca

Add your comments

Your comments:

Remember me

E-Mail me when someone replies to this comment

Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.

When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.

To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.