Ethical Issues raised by Article.
My reaction to the ethical issues raised by the information in the article
What opposing view could be expressed?
How could balance in research and reporting tactics have made a difference in the outcome of what was reported
"Researchers" are never identified.
Contradicting opinion is buried at the bottom of the story even though it's much more well sourced.
The small amount of information on why blondes are an "endangered species" doesn't provide much context, depth or additional sources to support its statements.
While the premise of blondes being less common is plausible, it seems hyperbolic to assume blondes will disappear completely because one unnamed researcher says they will after existing for an untold number of years.
It's noticeable that the dissenting opinions are placed at the bottom of the article even though they're much butter sourced. They chose to lead with the more sensational headline even though there wasn't much backing it.
On of the most prominent images on the webpage's caption reads "Bottle-blondes like Ann Widdecombe may be to blame" with no context to follow up. this comes off as a baseless criticism.
The opposing, but much more well sourced view that blondes may be more uncommon, but not extinct, could have been more prominent in the article.
The opposing view was presented as secondary to the headline even though it was much better sourced.
All of the imagery, which often helps drive a narrative, was supportive of the opinion that blondes would soon be extinct. I believe this was intentional, knowing that some people will take more from the imagery that accompanies an article than the text and sources themselves.
The simple fact that there are dissenting opinions should be mentioned in the headline, if not lead the headline.
The more well-sourced opinion should be the lead of the article and the opinion that blonde's may become extinct should be featured very last, if at all.
The research that blondes are at danger of becoming extinct needs much better sourcing. "Research" in general isn't a reliable source. We should know what organization or person conducted the research and have access to the raw data to support the sensationalized headline.
How could using a balance in research and reporting tactics have made a difference in the outcome of what was reported
The research supporting the headline should be better sourced
The better sourced research, which in this case is the dissenting, should be just as prominent, if not leading.
The imagery supporting the article should be even, if not leaning toward the better sourced research.
Both opinions should be cited in full to give a reader the most context as possible.