Drudge, right-wing media invade children’s privacy
September 23, 2009 9:31 pm ET by Jeremy Schulman
Drudge and the right-wing blogosphere are flogging a "SHOCK VIDEO" from YouTube that purports to show "[s]chool kids taught to praise Obama."
The children in this video appear to be no more than 8 years old. They have done nothing wrong. Presumably, neither they nor their parents have consented to having their faces plastered all over the right-wing media. They did nothing to justify Matt Drudge's invasion of their privacy. They did nothing to justify Michelle Malkin's invasion of their privacy.
Nothing these kids have done would warrant a decision by Glenn Beck, his enablers at Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, or Lou Dobbs to further invade their privacy.
The right is ruthless. They lie. They steal. They race-bait. Now they are exploiting children.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
But don't give them that much credit by calling Drudge & Malkin "ruthless".
They're revolting and offensive.
Anybody whoever says anything positive about Obama, whether it be the media, average citizens, or even children, are automatically branded socialists or communists (dear leader).
They're revolting and offensive.
I might add that they are the scummy residue that builds up in a shower stall and/or insignificant pathetic insects who need to be squished!
These lunatics would be losing their collective minds if this were anyone but them invading the privacy of innocent children!
Sleezy bastards!
In fairness to Druge, et al. (I can't believe I'm advocating fairness to Drudge), the video was posted on YouTube for the entire world to see it. Granted, Drudge is giving it a wider audience, but the toothpaste was already out of the tube.
I know that's not a very good defense for Drudge (and I'm hard pressed to come up with a defense for anything he does), but I think it's relevant to note the difference.
------------------------------------------------------------
Moral Relativism is not dead!
-------------------------------------------------------
My Blog
Heck, they even blur out license plates. People have more privacy related to their license plates than these kids have to not be viewed without their consent?
You are a nitwit who ignores reality to defend your side at all costs.
Media is supposed to blur out children who don't have their parent's consent to be publicly shown. Media should either blur those faces or not link to video that doesn't blur those faces. When they don't, they are guilty of violating a canon of their industry. Drudge is a commercial enterprise. The rules regulating commercial use (and yeah, if they link to it, they are using it) are different than the rules for personal use - what some individual posting it to YouTube is doing.
You are the one who is wrong. It's not what is already online that matters - it's how the commercial enterprises HAVE to behave that's the issue.
This is not a matter of opinion. That YOU think that their right to privacy can be voided simply because someone posted a video is irrelevant, in addition to being completely absurd. The LAW as well as INDUSTRY PRACTICE say otherwise.
-------------------------------------------------
Sue me
Drudge and Malkin's sites have a few more visitors than "whoever it was". I wouldn't think that fact needed to be pointed out.
So says the EPA in relation to the protection of the privacy rights of children.
The Drudge Report and FoxNews is involved in disseminating photos of children taken in a school setting. Because it might create a NEW VULNERABILITY of unwanted attention for the kids (any additional distribution or publication or promotion) by a commercial enterprise, they are prohibited from doing that without a release from the parents.
Commercial use of photographs of children taken in a school is prohibited. Your opinion of this doesn't matter. It's a law. I provided links to the law itself on another page here at Media Matters. Here it is again.
The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act and Rule apply to individually identifiable information about a child that is collected online, such as full name, home address, email address, telephone number or any other information that would allow someone to identify or contact the child.
Hmm, do you think that a photo of the child might help someone identify that child? Yes, of course it would, and so gathering a photo requires parental consent.
------------------------------------------------------------------
These people are scum
Be a watchdog and circulate this video to everyone in your address book and let them decide what they think of it. Shine the light.
and drop them a line or two. emails at: http://www.burltwpsch.org/?pageID=00006&letter=G&department=B. Bernice Young