Should students be held to the same standards as professionals?

The State Press (along with countless other news organizations) wrote about the controversial message recently published in the Rocky Mountain Collegian, Colorado State University's student newspaper. Whether or not you agree that it was necessary to use such explicit language to get the message across, the editor, David McSwane, was fired because of it. In this article, Joe Strupp argues that the student should not have been fired. He writes that for McSwane to be treated like a professional "who has been around a while, and should know better, is also inappropriate. " He raises an interesting and important question: "Should a senior in college be given the same scrutiny for a lapse in judgment that Dan Rather gets for using questionable documents in a report on the president?"

Britney Spears and nudity... what's new?

A link on the home page of Slate today linked to an article with the teaser "Is it OK for Kids to See Their Parents Naked?"

I thought this article sounded intriguing (plus I love Slate explainers). But as I began reading, this is what I found:
_________________________

Should Kids See Their Parents Naked?

The supposed dangers of familial nudity.

By Michelle Tsai
Is it okay for your kid to see you like this?

A court commissioner has ordered Britney Spears to undergo random drug and alcohol testing as well as meet with a parenting coach for eight hours each week. The pop star has been excoriated for her parenting blunders; she reportedly feeds her children junk food, whitens their teeth, and, according to a former bodyguard, regularly parades around them in the nude. What effect does parental nudity have on a young child?

_________________________

I was a little disappointed in Slate... What is the point in bringing Britney Spears in? I was confused at first -- I thought I clicked on the wrong article. Then after reading, I got the connection, though it still doesn't make 100 percent sense to me.

I just find it a little irritating that some newspapers and magazines will use whatever sensational news there is right now to get the public to read something...

I really expected more from Slate.

Clinton GQ Story

I saw this story today about how GQ was going to run an article this summer about in-fighting inside the campaign of Hillary Clinton. However they were told by the Clinton campaign that if they ran the story, they would lose access to Bill Clinton, who they planned to have on their cover of December's issue. The editor of GQ, Jim Nelson, says that they did decide not to run the article, but he refused to answer any other questions on the issue. I certainly think this is dangerous territory to get into, but it seems to be happening more and more. This article mentions that many Hollywood stars have gone this route as well, and it specifically mentions how Tom Cruise's publicists have required interviewers to sign statements saying they would not write anything derogatory about him. I also know that some sports stars have used this same strategy, threatening to or actually denying access to reporters or news outlets they feel have not treated them correctly. I'm not really sure what can be done about it, because you can't force people to submit to the media, but it certainly seems to be an emerging issue in journalism.

Media impact on the O.J. trial

There is a very anti-O.J. bias in the media coverage on television and that prevents a neutral evaluation of the case. Sports writer Jason Whitlock wrote in his NFL column for FoxSports.com that the television media is poisoning the jury pool for the O.J. Simpson armed robbery trial by perpetuating the obsession with Simpson in order to attract viewers. The coverage is overshadowing other, and in Whitlock's opinion, more important stories like the "Jena Six" case. Whitlock's arguments also seem to hold true for online coverage of the Simpson case.
CNN.com ran an Associated Press article that puts together a potential series of events for the Las Vegas robbery compiled from interviews and police reports. The article does make clear that the sides disagree on what happened, but the story spends more time focused on the arguments that make Simpson look bad. The media has to be responsible and acknowledge that all are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and stop trying to convict Simpson in the court of public opinion.

Power of a hed

This week, an ad in The New York Times caused quite a stir.
Here's the MoveOn web site where there are links to documents backing the group's argument as well as a pdf version of the full ad. Poynter's Roy Peter Clark writes off of the controversy, taking it as a way into discussion of why your "darling" headlines maybe ought not to run. Here's a take-out from his article:

I think what we have here is more than a failure to communicate. It's a seduction by creativity, an insincerity mated to hyperbole to meet the demands of a snarky and polarized political culture. The headline writer should have followed the advice, almost a century old now, of Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch, who lectured his Cambridge students that "style ... can never be ... extraneous ornament ... Whenever you feel an impulse to perpetrate a piece of exceptionally fine writing, obey it -- whole-heartedly -- and delete it before sending your manuscript to press. Murder your darlings."

no txtng n phx

The Phoenix City Council today approved an ordinance prohibiting the use of text messaging while operating a motor vehicle.
This action comes after recent tragedies that have occurred in Arizona and other states involving drivers text messaging while driving a vehicle.
“Composing, sending or receiving text messages while driving is extremely distracting and dangerous for drivers and puts everyone who is using the roadway at risk,” said Councilman Greg Stanton, who spearheaded the effort.
“This new ordinance will protect those using the road and help prevent further tragedies.”
The ordinance will take effect immediately, however there will be a 30-day warning period from Sept. 20 to Oct. 19.

More here.

When is photo manipulation ok?

In this case, CBS got in trouble for "slenderizing" Ms. Couric. But is it okay to remove gray hairs? Fix teeth? Hide a visible bra strap? Working in magazine publishing, I see a lot of this kind of stuff -- and some of it is necessary and positive. But in photojournalism, things are different. Where is the line?

Thoughts? (I know what I think, but I'm soliciting feedback.)
: )