in your dreams, there is breaking news that President Obama's 10 year-old daughter has been caught prostituting herself, and you are feverishly hearing arguments about whether you should run the story or not in your publication. You can almost hear loud shouting matches between your colleagues in the newsroom. "No! There's a little girl that's involved!". "Yes! Because the public has a right to know!". "Blah blah blah blah?!!". "Razz razz razz razz!!!".
And then you wake up, laugh thinking about how absurd it was, and start the countdown 'til the semester ends.
Strangely enough, though, I think my dream made me think of an interesting question that editors must ponder: When can minors be treated as adults, and when should they be allowed to just be kids?
It would be my sincerest, idealistic hope that, in the highly unlikely event that something like this should ever come to light about Malia Obama, the news media would not acknowledge it. She is, after all, a little girl whose life would probably never be the same afterwards. It's hard to imagine all the damage it would cause that could possibly never be repaired. A little girl's self-esteem can be as fragile as glass.
But, the reality is that every single news outlet in the world would publish it. It would probably be one of the biggest news stories we have seen in a very long time. With all the money that could be made, would an editor really have a choice whether or not they should ran the story? Would the people that would have their wallets fattened by this kind of story have the same feelings of moral obligation? Would the readers be disappointed when they opened up your publication, expecting to find out more about the Obama girl scandal, and find nothing?
Must the decisions that editors make be based on more than just right and wrong?
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Sexy Obama
This month's cover of the magazine "Washingtonian" featured a picture of our new president shirtless. The photo is a candid shot taken of Obama while on vacation in Hawaii, so it is not as though it looks like something straight of the pages of Playgirl. A caption next to the photo said "Our new neighbor is hot".
This has made some folks uncomfortable. It is one of the first times where an American president has been looked at as a sex symbol, and not every feels we should regard our president in such a way. According to a poll on AOL News, 54% of respondents gave a "thumbs down" on the cover. Yet, another poll that asked "Would it catch your eye on newsstands?", 63% of respondents said yes, it would.
I personally don't have a problem with it, if that is the choice of the editors. Yes it's strange and almost silly, but you must remember that this is a magazine and not a newspaper. Magazines are meant to be silly and amusing, especially if the magazine's tone is as such. It's certainly a different way of looking at the president.
This has made some folks uncomfortable. It is one of the first times where an American president has been looked at as a sex symbol, and not every feels we should regard our president in such a way. According to a poll on AOL News, 54% of respondents gave a "thumbs down" on the cover. Yet, another poll that asked "Would it catch your eye on newsstands?", 63% of respondents said yes, it would.
I personally don't have a problem with it, if that is the choice of the editors. Yes it's strange and almost silly, but you must remember that this is a magazine and not a newspaper. Magazines are meant to be silly and amusing, especially if the magazine's tone is as such. It's certainly a different way of looking at the president.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Still Not Convinced
Sorry I missed last week. In the exhaustion of trying to complete the J-425 critique project, I passed out on Wednesday afternoon and forgot to blog. Fortunately, that project is now complete and my focus is back on the paper for this class.
I said I would come back to the issue of political endorsements, and the result is I am still not convinced that endorsements are the right thing to do. One of the arguments I have found that some make for the case of endorsing is that it's a tradition. In my research, I have come across a funny quote that shows just how silly and absurd that argument is.
According to Richard Stengel from Time magazine, back in 1936, the Chicago Tribune was very vehemently opposed to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Ten days prior to the election, people that happened to call the Tribune's offices for whatever reasons were greeted by switchboard operators with the words "Hello. Chicago Tribune. Only 10 left to save the American way of life".
So yeah. My position in my paper is that political endorsements 1) are not objective 2) open up a proverbial pandora's box for corruption and 3) outdated and no longer have the clout that warrants having them in the first place.
Alright. I'm out. Back to writing.
ciao -K
I said I would come back to the issue of political endorsements, and the result is I am still not convinced that endorsements are the right thing to do. One of the arguments I have found that some make for the case of endorsing is that it's a tradition. In my research, I have come across a funny quote that shows just how silly and absurd that argument is.
According to Richard Stengel from Time magazine, back in 1936, the Chicago Tribune was very vehemently opposed to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Ten days prior to the election, people that happened to call the Tribune's offices for whatever reasons were greeted by switchboard operators with the words "Hello. Chicago Tribune. Only 10 left to save the American way of life".
So yeah. My position in my paper is that political endorsements 1) are not objective 2) open up a proverbial pandora's box for corruption and 3) outdated and no longer have the clout that warrants having them in the first place.
Alright. I'm out. Back to writing.
ciao -K
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
