The problem with this thread is that it's entirely possible to read it as both my post and your reply are sarcastic, or they both aren't.

If you really require me to be explicit, I can spell it out for you:

* Each person has an individual responsibility to realize such things for their self via critical thinking.

* A reporter has no legal responsibility to uphold journalistic principals.

* A reporter should have an ethical responsibility to uphold journalistic principals.

This, to me, is the equivalent of victim-blaming:

  You walk past a dark alley and see someone being
  assaulted. You are under no legal obligation to
  help the person, therefore you do not help the
  person. The person has no right to be angry at
  you because they should have been responsible
  for *their own* safety and shouldn't rely on
  anyone else. The person being assaulted is the
  person that is *really* at fault because they
  failed to protect their own personal safety.

If you wanted to have a serious conversation about journalistic integrity, you would not begin with sarcasm and continue with condescension. That's why you didn't deserve a serious reply, and still don't. The entire thread you started is also off-topic and as worthwhile as your thoughts in it.

In your original post, you stated that it was the reader's responsibility to do the critical thinking necessary to realize that the censorship controls could be used for 'evil.' This view implies that people without the requisite critical thinking skills are irresponsible, and therefore deserve what they get[1].

[1] Couldn't think of a better way of putting it. I'm not saying that you're stating that sentiment directly.

His view also fails to acknowledge the fact that press is not either cheap propaganda / sensationalism, versus well written and researched articles. There are also well written and researched manipulative articles that even a reader with good enough critical thinking skills might be mislead by.

It's easy to blame the reader when what you read is "too good to be true" or "so obvious that it's not", but when a fabrication makes its way into a rather respected journal, or when a more or less respected author gets something unusually wrong (which you're not clever enough to spot because it's not your expertise), then one can't be blamed to have believed it in the first place.

You started the conversation with statement that arguably defends shoddy journalism. Instead of backing it up, you claim the response to your comment is off-topic and proclaim offense at sarcasm and condescension (both useful devices for eliciting emotional responses in debate...). How about taking the high road?