"Blondes to die out in 200 years"
BBC News World Edition
September 27, 2002

Ethical issues raised by the article.

My reaction to the ethical issues raised in the article.

Play devils advocate, what opposing view could be expressed.

What is your opinion about the issue, and what caused you to form that opinion.

How could using a balance in research and reporting tactics have made a difference in the outcome of what was reported .

  1. How could someone report something and within the article give information that said the information was wrong.
  1. How natural blondes could be growing as a population.
  1. Giving a report about a gene that could be life ending.
  1. False information given about blondes becoming extent in the next 200 years.
  1. Giving information about a research that was conducted with specifying who did the research.
  1. News reporter contradicted their report by the end of their report by giving information that takes away from what the report was originally about.
  1. How could the reporter not give the information who conducted the research from Germany with information about who they were.

3.Why did the reporter give the information about the Professor stating that the gene will not disappear for those that naturally blonde.

  1. How the gene of being a natural blonde is a healthy gene and should be used to repopulate the world.
  1. Having the study with exact proof on why blondes would become extinct would have helped to understand the original statement.
  1. Scientific proof of how having the gene causes a health issue would have helped give people the information needed to help better themselves.
  1. My opinion on the issue is that the report can cause a scare in a group of people that does not need to be made.
  1. Yes, the ones reading the article are not ones going extinct at this exact moment, but this could lead to the group of people not having kids because they are scared of a health issue.
  1. The reporter takes away from this fact even in his own report and this is where they crossed the line, because he has no information to back up his original statement.