Is it consistent with the ethical standards of a journalist when he hides in a published article in SPIEGEL ONLINE for an Internet portal, advertises his editors, he is near? Is it consistent with the ethical standards of a journalist compatible if the advertised website hidden in the border area for cyber crime work? Marcus Anhäuser, at issue here would have to address these issues can ... However, a discussion is avoided.
If the science journalist Anhäuser Marcus, editor of the weblog placebo alarm at ScienceBlogs, with its reference to Esowatch.com as a small "favor" advertised for a friend? ? And he's in violation of Paragraph 1, 6 and 7 of the Press Code This view represents GWUP.WATCH - and has established the following location by facts. Or there are arguments that speak against this case?
Anhäuser Marcus had just the opportunity that against him to rebut the allegations - it has not been seized. In a discussion with publishers H.Blog Claus Fritzsche is Anhäuser manifests in his own blog with these words:
"But what to do now is to have its peculiar charge (the thing with the product placement) with the percentage History because I'm stumped. I also understand all the criticism did not. "
Fritzsche take the opportunity and explained the Anhäuser " thing with the surreptitious ". But rather than address the argument, put out the Anhäuser Fritzsche comment and provided it with a sardonic remark. The following screenshot shows comments and once again after before erasing it. And here is a copy of the censored Wortwechels:
Marcus accumulation - 20.02.10 - 14:57 clock
Hello Mr. Fritzsche,
is great if you agree with me. Find that the over-stretched, is your right. I think it's appropriate. But what now has to do her strange allegation (the thing with the product placement) with the percent history, I'm stumped. I do not understand all the criticism.
follow and on their website? Since I'm from annoyed last time: After your system has eaten twice my comments, I honestly do not feel anymore.
I hope you understand that.
And please correct: The article did not appear in the mirror and my blog is not written with "c". You can also correct the same for GWUP-Watch.
nice weekend
Claus Fritzsche - 21:02:10 - 14:28 clock
Dear Anhäuser,
like I tell you what your "percent history" to do with my criticism of "surreptitious advertising" added. It is my intention to address your double standard: throw in a glass house with huge rocks around! The key (your Spiegel-Online article "If patients rinse their own bile" in question) criticisms are already well on GWUP.WATCH summarized
first CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
hidden make advertising a portal (Esowatch.com), whose editors are close to you. This is a breach of the Press Code of the German Press Council, which classifies such behavior is not as trivial. This is a serious offense, which journalists, for ethical reasons to have failed. It does not matter whether the "favors" are connected with a pecuniary value or not.
(I would rate your article differently if you had only published to your blog. Are in a key medium like SPIEGEL ONLINE in terms of "complicity" indications, however, higher standards.)
second Misdirection:
and your reference to the link to Esowatch.com are beyond criticism even from a journalistic point of view to a large extent. If you question the health advice on the Internet right, it's irresponsible and unprofessional to refer to a source like Esowatch.com which itself contrary to the principles of evidence-based patient information (anonymous authors, disregard of EBM-criteria, many errors selective and tendentious representation, ideological bias).
third CRIME:
As science journalist, you should have as much ability to differentiate and observation skills to be able to perform at Esowatch.com not only the valuable and worthy of criticism, but also the dangerous aspects and weight. The platform operates in the border area of cybercrime, as the example "Simon K." (O-Ton Esowatch "psychiatric experience, she has also") makes clear. And what Esowatch.com many personalities - such as MP Biggi Bender of Alliance 90/The Greens or Dietrich Grönemeyer - selective and tendentious writing, moving from the technical and her intellectual level far below the turf.
point 1, 2 and 3 are in total so blatantly obvious and that your article has to me the very self-destructive tendencies.
All the above thoughts, I wanted to express the way earlier, but this had me pinched. I think it extremely Overstretched blog post about me now was the trigger to articulate myself. True to the motto: What goes into the forest, comes around.
eliminated all clarity?
Also you have been a nice weekend
Claus Fritzsche
This comment from Marcus Anhäuser deleted and marked with the following reference text:
Hey Mr. Fritzsche, since you have probably misunderstood me. The solicitation should be your nonsense you spread already on her blog about me, do it on my to be done. You could not really believe that you get away with it? Do this even more beautiful on your blog (and of course, on Twitter and GWUP Watch). And do not forget to spread that I have censored your comment.
more information about the controversy Anhäuser / Fritzsche:
placebo Alarm: "58% of the members of the German Bundestag have positive experiences with a homeopathic treatment "
H. Blog: Dangerous surreptitious: Marcus Anhäuser, SPIEGEL ONLINE and Esowatch
screenshot. censored discussion Anhäuser / Fritzsche, in the weblog placebo alarm
About the association GWUP eV:
ass Watch. wiki entry "GWUP"
0 comments:
Post a Comment