You know you have been in journalism school to long when

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?