Johannesen: Chapter 2

The second chapter in text talked about different political perspectives. It seems as if just the word politics is crawling with uncertainties, dislike, and confusion. However, the word "politics" in this case is used as an umbrella term for any communication on public issues and public policy.


The text reads, on page 21, that values within political communication include equal opportunity, dignity, accurate information on current issues and so on, however one stood out. 


"Accuracy..." "honesty..." and "fairness" were among values listed for political communication. Looking through the past, specifically at presidents, was there honesty and fairness demonstrated in these circumstances? 


Watergate Hotel: http://iweb.tntech.edu/kosburn/history-202/watergate.htm
Monica Lewinsky: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFKtgTsKDIg&feature=related


However inaccuracies and lack of fairness in situations are not only done by the presidents. While talking about certain issues that are politically charged, people are bound to (at least consider) leave out information to not seem as much at fault in circumstances, or may disregard issues that could shed a negative light on a company, organization, or person in power.


But is this always necessarily bad? Shouldn't some political-related information be kept from the public? I would not want to know about nuclear weapon threats, or certain national security issues such as Area 51.


But there is an ethical line to be drawn. 


There are areas where the public has a right to know certain things, but when does certain information become too much?