In a media world full of death and crime coverage, a satirical story once in a while is refreshing. As was well-established by the CCSU student reporter who wrote about "benefits" of rape, humor in the news must be well-labeled. When using this standard for satire, I am unable to understand all of the hype about the Daily Princetonian and its annual joke issue.
A long-winded article from the Philadelphia Inquirer repeatedly bashed the publication of college newspaper joke issues.
Fewer colleges are publishing joke issues as legal liabilities rise and national journalism groups advise against them. Because of their appearance and long life on the Internet, on which they appear less like satire, concerns increase even more.
Joke issues "often backfire," said Bob Steele, senior ethics faculty at the nonprofit Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank in St. Petersburg, Fla. "While the intent may be to offer humor about serious issues, the quality of the humor often falls short and the other weaknesses of satire become apparent."
I feel as if the Daily Princetonian is taking too much heat for something published simply in good humor. When addressing something like a joke issue, or even something as trivial as a practical joke, in-depth legal and ethical standards should not be considered. As long as the readers of such satire are made aware of the nature of the publication, it's okay to laugh!
2.28.2007
2.25.2007
More on Blog Limitations
Although I stand by my Feb. 10 blog thoughts that all bloggers have a duty to portray information in a manner that does not blatantly offend anyone, I do not agree with the legal precedent set in an article from Reuters.
"An Alexandria court convicted an Egyptian blogger on Thursday for insulting both Islam and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and sentenced him to four years in jail over his writings on the Internet."
Other opposition bloggers have been periodically arrested and held in custody for weeks or months, but Abdel Karim Suleiman, a 22-year-old former law student, is the first to be convicted and sentenced to long-term jail time.
A fellow blogger who attended Suleiman's trial said, "It's a dangerous precedent because it will impact the only free space available now, which is the Internet. The charges were undefined and vague."
Even though certain limits must be placed on the blogosphere, the public has the right to have the ability to as much knowledge and information that people in media have to offer. In this case, convicting a blogger for merely expressing criticism of touchy subjects is unethical as it is unjust.
"An Alexandria court convicted an Egyptian blogger on Thursday for insulting both Islam and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and sentenced him to four years in jail over his writings on the Internet."
Other opposition bloggers have been periodically arrested and held in custody for weeks or months, but Abdel Karim Suleiman, a 22-year-old former law student, is the first to be convicted and sentenced to long-term jail time.
A fellow blogger who attended Suleiman's trial said, "It's a dangerous precedent because it will impact the only free space available now, which is the Internet. The charges were undefined and vague."
Even though certain limits must be placed on the blogosphere, the public has the right to have the ability to as much knowledge and information that people in media have to offer. In this case, convicting a blogger for merely expressing criticism of touchy subjects is unethical as it is unjust.
2.12.2007
More on Student Newspaper Censorship
In my blog from Jan. 20, I took a legal approach in defending the rights of students to publish their newspapers without undergoing censorship by administration. Although I still believe that the students of St. Francis High School had every right to run the controversial photograph, I have recently come across an article that leads me to determine that some censorship--whether it be legal or illegal--is necessary.
The article from the Hartford Courant discusses a controversial article from the CCSU campus newspaper that addressed supposed "benefits" of rape. John Petroski's article (of which is unavailable for linking) entitled "Rape Only Hurts If You Fight It" caused an uproar on the campus where a number of students even held a protest calling for Petroski's resignation from the paper.
"I couldn't believe the things I was reading," [a freshman named Sarah] said Thursday, a day after the article appeared. "I couldn't believe anyone in this day and age would write something like that, and that other people would let it be published."
Though many students like Sarah had similar thoughts and were offended by the story content, it is also important to note the other side. The Hartford Courant article goes on to say...
Student editors at the paper said the article was meant to be a satirical jab at the sensationalistic nature of the modern news media. But dozens of students said the article fell well short of being funny. Instead, they said, it caused deep pain for those who have already been raped, and that it reinforced age-old, misogynistic stereotypes.
In falling short of its purpose, Petroski's article not only failed to meet the standard principle of utility, but it also led many students and faculty to question his character and the character of those who allowed running the story. When writing about such personal issues like rape, journalists must maintain a certain level of virtue and censor accordingly.
The article from the Hartford Courant discusses a controversial article from the CCSU campus newspaper that addressed supposed "benefits" of rape. John Petroski's article (of which is unavailable for linking) entitled "Rape Only Hurts If You Fight It" caused an uproar on the campus where a number of students even held a protest calling for Petroski's resignation from the paper.
"I couldn't believe the things I was reading," [a freshman named Sarah] said Thursday, a day after the article appeared. "I couldn't believe anyone in this day and age would write something like that, and that other people would let it be published."
Though many students like Sarah had similar thoughts and were offended by the story content, it is also important to note the other side. The Hartford Courant article goes on to say...
Student editors at the paper said the article was meant to be a satirical jab at the sensationalistic nature of the modern news media. But dozens of students said the article fell well short of being funny. Instead, they said, it caused deep pain for those who have already been raped, and that it reinforced age-old, misogynistic stereotypes.
In falling short of its purpose, Petroski's article not only failed to meet the standard principle of utility, but it also led many students and faculty to question his character and the character of those who allowed running the story. When writing about such personal issues like rape, journalists must maintain a certain level of virtue and censor accordingly.
2.10.2007
Setting the Limits
In the ever-changing world of new media, the limits of using tools like blogs have yet to be set. An article from the Baltimore Sun discusses the limits of blogging in support of presidential candidate John Edwards. According to the article,
"The Internet has been an important campaign tool for Edwards. He, his wife, Elizabeth, and daughter Cate write and post blogs."
Recently, two female campaign bloggers were accused of angering Catholics and conservatives with "intolerant language." Edwards chastised the bloggers, but did not fire them from his campaign. They assured him that it was not their intent to offend anyone.
The article addresses the limits of campaign blogging in this manner:
Phil Noble, founder of the nonpartisan, Charleston, N.C.-based PoliticsOnline, said campaigns are still learning the ropes of Internet politics.
"We have a new technology that's disrupting the whole political process," he said, "and we haven't figured out what the rules are. We had the same thing with television and with radio."
Though these campaign bloggers' motives were to portray as much information to the public as possible, they have a duty to do so in a manner that does not offend anyone. While establishing the limits, it's likely that incidents such as this one are the only way to determine where to draw the line.
"The Internet has been an important campaign tool for Edwards. He, his wife, Elizabeth, and daughter Cate write and post blogs."
Recently, two female campaign bloggers were accused of angering Catholics and conservatives with "intolerant language." Edwards chastised the bloggers, but did not fire them from his campaign. They assured him that it was not their intent to offend anyone.
The article addresses the limits of campaign blogging in this manner:
Phil Noble, founder of the nonpartisan, Charleston, N.C.-based PoliticsOnline, said campaigns are still learning the ropes of Internet politics.
"We have a new technology that's disrupting the whole political process," he said, "and we haven't figured out what the rules are. We had the same thing with television and with radio."
Though these campaign bloggers' motives were to portray as much information to the public as possible, they have a duty to do so in a manner that does not offend anyone. While establishing the limits, it's likely that incidents such as this one are the only way to determine where to draw the line.
2.04.2007
Foul Language in Print
Many of my friends could attest to the fact that I am not a fan of cursing. I often say, "Watch your mouth!" Although this may get annoying for some, most of my friends respect my request.
In an article written by Aly Colon from Poynter Online regarding the hype around Isaiah Washington (who plays Dr. Preston Burke on Grey's Anatomy) using the word "faggot" off-camera, the ethics of when and when not to print foul language are discussed. Colon writes,
The decision about whether to use an offensive word depends on three elements: your journalistic purpose, your audience and the clarity (or lack of it) that comes from using the word (or not using it).
In her descriptions of these elements, Colon's standards focus on the ethical system of utility. The decision of whether or not to print foul language comes down to the greatest benefit of the media audience. I agree with using this standard, as mass media is intended to keep the public informed. Although the ethics of reporting celebrity "news" will likely be questioned for eternity, stories dealing with rights of minority group individuals deserve to published to comply with the system of utility.
In an article written by Aly Colon from Poynter Online regarding the hype around Isaiah Washington (who plays Dr. Preston Burke on Grey's Anatomy) using the word "faggot" off-camera, the ethics of when and when not to print foul language are discussed. Colon writes,
The decision about whether to use an offensive word depends on three elements: your journalistic purpose, your audience and the clarity (or lack of it) that comes from using the word (or not using it).
In her descriptions of these elements, Colon's standards focus on the ethical system of utility. The decision of whether or not to print foul language comes down to the greatest benefit of the media audience. I agree with using this standard, as mass media is intended to keep the public informed. Although the ethics of reporting celebrity "news" will likely be questioned for eternity, stories dealing with rights of minority group individuals deserve to published to comply with the system of utility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)