Reposted by Bret Baier
The statement from the WSJ editorial board discusses potential political changes in Venezuela and their implications for the region, which constitutes public discourse as it engages with public issues and international relations.
- The statement does not directly harm with words, but it implies a preference for regime change, which can be sensitive and potentially harmful if not handled diplomatically. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement lacks empathy and compassion, as it focuses on political victories rather than the human impact of such changes. [-2]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in personal attacks but presents a one-sided view without inviting dialogue or considering opposing perspectives. [-1]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
- The statement uses its platform to influence public opinion on foreign policy, but it does so in a way that prioritizes political victories over societal betterment. [-1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds free speech but could use its platform more responsibly by considering the broader implications of its message.Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.