coolangatta

To protect/defend your industry?
If you believed that your company held 'debatable' data, or there was 'evidence' that would ultimately, very unfairly, provide very negative publicity that may result in very detrimental financial circumstances; Would you A) Disclose the information confident that it may be damaging but believe that the 'public' can wade through the dross and ultimately give it all a reasonable view or B) Keep it under wraps as 'the public' is not served by knowing what they may not understand and the press will misreport in any case? 'As they always do!'

Theoretical of course.

I believe 'B' is the way to go as the 'public' are, on the whole, as thick as... and need protection! IMHO of course, based on experience

magepaster

iTrader: (2)

Option A for me.

As a member of the public I'm fed up with being thought of as not having the capacity to understand things that ultimately I have a right to know.

I think

SJ_Skyline

Depends if you are going to gain or lose from action or inaction on either front.

There are cases where inaction on option A could land you a custodial.

PeteBrant

Is the data in relation to illegal activity? If yes, then option A is the only viable option. If not then it is purely down to your conscience

coolangatta

True, but ultimately (theoretically) you/me will not be the one to carry the can

coolangatta

No, not illegal activity but data that could be misconstrued, to the layman and his ever 'salivating' press, as terminal to your activities.

coolangatta

Noted, but seeing as you responded, without resorting to swearing and in words of more than one syllable (or text speak), you are not considered 'the public' or tabloid believer

magepaster

iTrader: (2)

Considering root B leads one to consider root A and raises a moral issue. If morally you consider root A then logically root B is morally wrong.

Jerome

I would prefer an option C whereby all the tabloids were banned from reporting it whilst the broadsheets were allowed.

That way, those of us with a brain would know and the tabloid reading "public" could be shielded from information they don't have the capacity to understand.

SJ_Skyline

Or option D: Store evidence in case the company decide to try and do a "Chocolate-o-brian" on you.

coolangatta

Touche! But who mentioned morals The question related to your willingness to protect your company/industry from potential injustice!

coolangatta

I like your logic.

PeteBrant

Politically influenced reporting is politically influenced reporting. The Times and the Sun are owned by the same person. The Telegraph is a Tory paper, the Guardian is a Labour one.

Yes the red tops are far more sensationalist (and in the case of the Mail, hate ridden tripe written by underdeveloped chimpanzees) - But, underlying that is the same political bias

coolangatta

Accepted, but the 'public' see only scare headlines and little else. Reasonable debate is never on the agenda so how could I/you be confident that anything issued to the outside world would be given 'fair press'.
IMO it isn't going to happen. Therefore, it will encourage you/me to be deceiptful, No?

magepaster

iTrader: (2)

Ah, but protecting your company is done by taking option B which you can't do without considering option A. Taking option B means deliberately withholding information that just by posing the question is important enough not to be hidden. The whole situation is a moral issue.
I'm not damning anyone, just stating the way it would evolve in my mind should the situation occur in my life.

SJ_Skyline

Who was it you said you worked for?

coolangatta

Can't say But this is all hypothetical

coolangatta

My reasoning is that; disclosure, albeit initially damaging, would, in an educated culture, produce a fair and conscientious opinion. However, in our 'free press' state (read moronic tabloid frenzy), as it now presents its self, I would be reluctant to disclose anything.
We constantly have a pop at China, Russia, Burma and the like for not allowing a 'free press' but it's not suprising that they are sceptical (is it?) as they can easily judge our free press for what it's worth. It's not a mystery that they are unwilling to travel the same route?