Don't Call Me Douchebag.

A CONNECTICUT HIGH SCHOOL student was barred from running for student council after she called her school's administrators "douchebags" on her personal blog.

The student took the case to court, claiming her First Amendment rights were violated.

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declined her case. It was shot down again this month by another federal court.

While discussing the case in federal court this week, the principal testified that she punished Ms. Doninger because the blog entry "demonstrate[d] lack of citizenship" and because she thought "the word douchebags itself [was] a horrible word."

Should students be able to criticize their school administrations on personal blogs? Is using the word "douchebag" offensive? Did the student have her First Amendment rights violated?

(the image above is from the Baltimore Sun's free daily newspaper ... it caused a stir when the paper ran "Douchebag!" on the front of the paper).

There's No Cheering in the Press Box.

IF YOU WERE A SPORTSWRITER and your son was a superstar wide receiver playing in the Super Bowl, could you cover the game objectively?

Larry Fitzgerald of the Cardinals will have his performance documented and critiqued by hundreds of journalists, including his own father, Larry Sr.

"I understand there's no cheering," Larry Sr. told USA Today. "I'm there as an objective journalist."

But over the past two years, Larry Sr. has written about his son in the Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder, a weekly newspaper serving the African American community, at least 23 times (according to a Salon.com story). In a story after the Cardinals defeated the Eagles, the elder Fitzgerald wrote:

No bird — or player, for that matter — has played better in these playoffs than Fitzgerald. The remarkable 25-year-old receiver has been on fire in the playoffs. In many ways he has literally carried his team on his back, making incredible acrobatic caches and big plays.

Can you be a journalist and a proud father at the same time?

Gatekeepers of Information or Taking Sides in the War?

THE BBC REFUSED to air the video above, an appeal to potential viewers to aid the victims of Israel's three week bombing campaign in Gaza.

The BBC claims that airing the video creates an air of impartiality. They fear that viewers would believe the BBC favors the Palestinians rather than Israel in the long-standing conflict.

Many have protested in England, saying that by not running the video, the BBC has already sided with Israel.

Would you run the video? Do you think it would reveal a bias? Or is the BBC right to pass on the segment?

Movie Ratings: Two Thumbs Down, Critics Say.

DOES THE RATINGS SYSTEM make your life easier? Or does it treat you like an idiot?

Many critics - of movies, restaurants, music, whatever - have some sort of rating system that accompanies their full-length critiques of the work.

The Wall Street Journal wrote about the ratings phenomena today:

Even those critics who don't assign stars or grades find their carefully wrought opinions converted into numbers -- or a thumbs up or thumbs down -- and mashed together with other critics' opinions. Critics tend to loathe the system and succumb to it at the same time. It all makes for an odd scale that, under the veneer of objective numerical measurement, is really just an apples-to-oranges mess. On Metacritic, best-picture nominee "The Reader" is tied with the latest James Bond flick. On Rotten Tomatoes, the drama tied with the dog-man buddy comedy "Marley & Me."

Later in the article, the author quotes famed film reviewer Roger Ebert.

"I don't know where the stars come from, but they're absurd," he says.

One of the central arguments is that readers will just look at the grade or rating, and not delve into the subtleties of the article. That simple thumbs up, or three bells, or "B+" may not explain the complexities of the film or song or production.

What do you think? Do you like the ratings system? Do you continue on to read the full stories?

Obama Goes to Work (But the Media Can't Watch).

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA went to work on Wednesday, one day after being sworn into office.

Traditionally, the media are allowed into the Oval Office to photograph the president at work on day one. That didn't happen this year.

Instead, the White House offered their own images (including the one above) to the press.

Several media outlets, including three major wire services - Associated Press, Reuters and Agence-France Presse, refused to transmit the images.

"We are not distributing what are, in effect, visual press releases," said Michael Oreskes, managing editor for U.S. news at the AP.

Are the media over-reacting by not using the images? Is there any danger in the White House offering the media images rather than letting the media shoot their own pictures?

Ironically, on Obama's first full day in office, he spoke to his staff about the importance of giving citizens a clear understanding of how government is working for the people.

“Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones,” Obama said.

A Few Words Shy of Flawless.

THE VERBAL STUMBLING between Chief Justice John Roberts and now-president Barack Obama during the swearing-in ceremony caused a minor controversy.

The folks at Fox News questioned whether Obama was actually the president because he did not say the exact words as prescribed by law.

On Wednesday, about 36 hours after becoming president, Obama and Roberts again performed the oath so as to avoid further controversy.

Was Fox News acting in a biased, partisan manner when they questioned Obama's legitimacy as president? Or were they serving the role of government watchdog, acting on behalf of the citizens?

Does it Matter if Most of the White House Reporters are White?

THE FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN to become president of the United States takes office this week.

When President Barack Obama holds his first official press conference, most of the faces staring back at him will not be black.

Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz says that "the relative paucity of black journalists at the White House is striking."

Which raises the question: should there be greater diversity in the White House press corps because there is an African-American president?

"Imagine you're president, at the lectern, looking out at those faces," says White House correspondent April Ryan of the American Urban Radio Networks, "is this a representation of America?"

Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe responded by writing, "With so many other things to worry about, and with the whole world able to see that racial identity is no longer a barrier to even the most powerful position in American life, you might think the press would finally be ready to abandon its unhealthy preoccupation with the color of skin - especially the skin within its own ranks. Alas, no."

What do you think?

(The image above is from the White House Correspondents' Association. It portrays the press who covered the Truman administration of the 1950's.)

The Brits Wear Bulletproof Vests in North Philly.

MOST NEWSCASTS IN PHILADELPHIA mention murders and shootings but rarely do they delve beyond the specific event.

A British film crew spent time with the Philadelphia police, documenting life in the inner city ... not far from Temple.

Watch the clip above, and check out parts 2 through 6. Is it good journalism? Do they delve beyond the actual events and explore the reasons why we have such poverty, crime and violence? Or is this just good footage of crazy stuff?

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)