The question is a matter of a professionals’ concept in ethics, or is it?

Ethics is a commodity that seems to drift more and more to the negative side of life with each passing generation. Ideals of old which we all cherished as children, as tradition, are bending and slowly give way to a venue known as progress to some and depredation to others. Sometimes in this progress, the values we learned in our past are not always viewed in a contemporaneous manner which allows us to drift into uncertain spectrums. Where our value then becomes an idea fixed on an exchange rate in the many banks of the world.

Freedom of speech, as well as the written word, should never be hindered and thus an infringement could also be contemplated in the space for hire.

The question then arises; will the truth be that which is purchased? In a future world where, unless the written word is paid for, can no truth be derived? No honesty can come from the silent. Hmmm, this is truly going where no human has gone before: without the purchase of a purse, a world where the commentator’s thoughts go to the highest bidder, that doesn’t even have a nice sound to it. Thinking that our influenced deliberation would hinge on the grandest production and the higher the cost the greater the truth shall be dubbed? Unaddressed, this concept is as dangerous as any new idea that is unproven. In this presented concept the rich shall prevail and the have nots will have even less.

In this modern world our Forum is the many types of visually presented or typewritten presentations found around the planet giving commentary. Media presentations, printed or otherwise, should hold themselves duty bound to present that which is creditable, unhindered and forthright to hold the trust of the recipients, first, last, and always. A forum that allows anything less will be breaking the trust of so many for the dollars of so few. Accepting these media of exchange for viewed or printed material just may cause the clock of change to tick in a negative direction.

In nature it has been found that to keep a perfect balance, there has to be a positive for every negative. This law can be found throughout the planet, not only in physics but in every facet of existence. Two like forces repel and the unlike attract. How do these simple laws of nature fit into this debate? The paid for column is presenting a point of view, but keep in mind, it is paid. Does it make this column any less truthful than the commentary of the editor’s choice? One is guaranteed access to the eyes and ears of the subscribers and the other is left to whims of choice. Conjecture arises from these thoughts and to that end we have to ask: How do we solve this dilemma?

We must realize that all presentation passed to the consumers are an attempt to gain revenue in sufficient quantity to present another day’s world. Therefore lays the answer. So, how is the question of paid-for editorials answered? Easy, it is already being handled by ample presentations I know we have all stopped to sneak peeks at. They are the scandal sheets, rags, tabloids or many other names.

Perhaps my summation is a trifle unfair by comparing editorials with the tabloids and I will recant some. The idea is to make money and hope for a steady supply of revenue to keep on hopefully with the printed truth. I feel that if individuals or corporations wish to pay for presentations, a business should accommodate the customer. Keep it in a separate section and so listed as paid-for editorials. In this manner, they who read this material will know that the author of the work being read thought it important enough to pay for it, whether it is Truth or Lie.


(W. Anthony lives in Colon. This column is part of the debate sparked by the decision of India’s principal English-language newspaper, The Times of India, to start selling editorials.)