I agree - I do not want to see the media discuss morals. Some do, but M/T says it is not their job, which is true. Unless you are specifically reading an op-ed piece. Unfortunately, what I also see from society (at least in the blue state society I have lived all my life) is that it is generally OK to publish left-leaning morals and values (portrayed generally as facts that "everyone" already agrees with, unless you are some backwoods, insensitive clod) but NOT OK to publish right-leaning morals and values (portrayed as backwoods, blindly religious hard right). That I have deep issue with.Underscoring what is right and wrong is not our job, but highlighting the consequences of wrongdoing certainly is. We pride ourselves on reporting news across the auto industry as squarely and soberly as we can, with no punches pulled but no extra shots delivered. Moral discussions we leave up to readers, and the passionate ones never fail to deliver.
Do I think it is possible that the exact opposite happens in red states? Maybe that helps explain the polarization of politics. So while it is possible, I'd argue that it seems the majority of online media is run out of one of the coasts.
Plenty of consequences reported.It would be easy to dismiss Luke’s letter as the well-written but naive musings of a neophyte not yet familiar with how the world works. After all, VW has pled guilty to charges of fraud, obstruction of justice, customs violations, and violations of the Clean Air Act. At last count, it is paying more than $20 billion in fines and settlements of various lawsuits. Top executives have lost their jobs, and a handful might see jail time. VW of America has dropped diesel from its lineup and has no current plans to ever bring it back