[ExI] Robert Ettinger's obituary in NYT

Dan dan_ust at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 2 16:05:28 UTC 2011

As far as I'm aware, there is no such rule regarding print media in the US. Also, the Fairness Doctrine is basically, in my understanding, no longer in force in regard to broadcast media in the US. In other words, nothing legal prevents the NY Times or any newspaper in the US from taking a pro- or anti- cryonics stance. (Add to this, the NY Times does have opinion columns that do take controversial stances on issues. AFAIK, that paper is not obligated to provide equal column inches to opposing viewpoints.)
From: BillK <pharos at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2011 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Robert Ettinger's obituary in NYT

That's not the way public 'news' type organisations work.

If they did say why cryonics might be prudent, then for the sake of
so-called 'balanced' reporting, they would also have to give equal
column inches (or time) to explaining why cryonics is NOT a good idea.

They even do that with things like evolution or exploring space or
regulating giant banks.

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:32 PM, David Lubkin wrote:
> It seems to be more accurate than the Washington Post obit
> but the tone is insulting.
> Have any of the obits gone into why cryonics might be prudent?
> Cryonics as an ambulance through time, the prospects of
> molecular nanotechnology, and the assessment that a slim
> chance of revival is better than none, could be presented in
> lay terms in a sentence apiece.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110802/075a052b/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list