The Media Create an Open Forum (But Can You Take the Negative Criticism?).

A STUDENT JOURNALIST AT American University wrote a column stating that "date rape" does not exist.

"Let’s get this straight," he wrote. "Any woman who heads to an EI party as an anonymous onlooker, drinks five cups of the jungle juice, and walks back to a boy’s room with him is indicating that she wants sex, OK? To cry 'date rape' after you sober up the next morning and regret the incident is the equivalent of pulling a gun to someone’s head and then later claiming that you didn’t ever actually intend to pull the trigger."

The author has caught a lot of flack for his statements, and students are calling for him to be removed from the paper. Someone even vandalized the newspaper honor boxes, throwing the papers everywhere and posting signs reading, "No room for rape apologists."

"I have a fun time stirring the pot," the student journalist told the Washington Post. "I don't mind being hated for my views."

Is there anything wrong with the student writing such things, and the newspaper printing them (online as well as in print)?

Is this creating an open forum for debate or is this just spewing venom?

Would you be able to stand by your words as people freaked out?

Can You Handle Being a Journalist?

A JOURNALIST WORKS IN the public eye, and we often catch people at sensitive moments - after losses, crimes and failures of various sorts. On occasion, people yell at us in response. Can you handle it?

The video above shows the University of Florida football coach Urban Meyer snapping at a reporter from the Orlando Sentinel. The reporter had published a story including a quote that one Florida player made about a former player. The quoted player sounds critical of the former player.

Does the coach have the right to be upset? Did the reporter do his job poorly, and thus deserve the tongue-lashing?

How would you have handled the situation?

Do the F*****g Asterisks Do Any Good?

VP JOE BIDEN dropped the f-bomb while whispering to the president yesterday ... in front of a live microphone. In the White House. As he was introducing the president. In front of reporters and cameras. Classic.

Today's Metro ran this cover, featuring asterisks rather than printing the actual word. Did they make the right decision?

If we all know what the asterisks represent, isn't it sort of pointless to use them?

Even children would probably get this one. So is the Metro at fault all-around - they essentially ran an obscenity on the cover of a widely distributed newspaper?

STOP! Or Your Picture Will Run in the Paper!

A NEW NEWSPAPER in Texas gets the majority of their content from the police department: mugshots.

For $1 per issue, you can purchase Mugly! and see the faces of the recently arrested (as well as read their names and why they were arrested, though convictions are pending).

Is there anything wrong with building a business model off the backs of those charged with murder, aggravated assault, criminal trespass, DUI and other crimes? Is this journalism or voyeurism?

Should the Media Feed the Angry Teens' Egos?

A BRITISH TEENAGER followed a politician doing a tour of the youth's town back in 2007. With the media filming video and shooting still images, the youth made gun gestures while walking behind the politician.

The BBC tracked down the teenager and his friends. The youths are obviously showing off for the media during the interview, and the BBC blurred out the faces of the other youths.

Should the media have blurred out the faces? Should the media have shown these kids at all? Isn't it just feeding into their egos?

Most of the media revealed the name of the young man in the picture, the teenager making the gun gesture. Should the media have printed and aired his name since he is only 17-years old?

What do you think?

Is a Politician's Sexual Orientation Newsworthy?

SIX DAYS AFTER being busted for DUI after leaving a gay bar, California state senator Roy Ashburn told the media that he is gay.

Rumors had floated for years that the divorced father was gay but the media never reported them. Should they have?

A columnist asked Ashburn, who has been adamant in his opposition to gay rights, about his orientation in 2009. Ashburn answered, "Why would that be anyone's business? I think there are certain subjects that are simply not relevant and this is one of them. It has no bearing on the job I do."

Should the media simply report the denial? Or should they further investigate if they think the person is lying?

This situation has popped up numerous times in recent years, most famously with former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey. The media did not report rumors of homosexuality then either.

With issues like gay marriage and partner rights being debated in legislatures around the country, does the public have the right to know the orientation of their elected officials?

Blatant Self-Promotion: Your Teacher is a Multimedia Journalist (and You Should Be Too).

PHILADELPHIA SPORTS FANS have long had the reputation for being jerks. Our teams were so bad, for so long, that we were, well, angry.

All of the sudden, our teams are good (except the Sixers, who continue to be awful). Will success change the Philly sports fans? Will we become happy, gentle people who smile and say polite things rather than scowl and give the finger?

Read my story from the cover of this week's Philadelphia Weekly. Let me know what you think.

How Much Photo Manipulation Makes it Fraud?

A PHOTOJOURNALIST WHO won third prize in the sports feature category of the prestigious World Press Photo competition was disqualified after it was discovered that one of his images was digitally manipulated.

The original image is above. The image that was deemed manipulated (part of the winning series) is at right. It is a severe crop of the original, changed to black and white, burned generously, with a tiny little bit PhotoShopped out of the image (click here to see where a foot was removed).

Should the entry have been disqualified? Is it acceptable to crop so much in photojournalism? Is it acceptable to change the image from color to black and white? Is the removal of such a small thing really an ethical issue?

Is it Presenting Reality or Promoting Ideals?

THE WASHINGTON POST ran the image above on their front page last week after applications for same-sex marriages were accepted by the District of Columbia for the first time.

Some readers freaked out. One person wrote to the paper saying, “I would appreciate it if your cover pictures would not be so disturbing where my kids can see it easily on the kitchen table... please don’t shove this “Gay” business in our face. This is something that should have shown up on an inside page or two (without the picture).”

Is there anything wrong with running the photo? Is the Post taking sides in the same-sex marriage debate by publishing the image so prominently?

More broadly: should the news media reflect the public or create standards for what society should deem as acceptable?

Is Iverson's Off-Court Drama Newsworthy?

BASKETBALL STAR Allen Iverson has been a controversial figure since before he arrived in the NBA.

In high school he was arrested after a huge brawl between groups of teens. He left Georgetown University to enter the NBA draft before graduating, the first player at Georgetown to do that under the former coach. While playing with the Sixers, Iverson was constantly in the media spotlight because of his his work ethic, his tattoos, and his brushes with the law (he allegedly urinated in a trash can on a casino floor, there was talk of guns, he was busted with pot once, etc).

But he was also one of the most exciting players to ever wear a Sixers jersey (he recently left the team to tend to his ailing daughter).

Now, the media is reporting that Iverson is getting a divorce from the mother of his five children. Other reports say that Iverson has issues with drinking and gambling.

Should the media cover Iverson's off-court life? Is that relevant and newsworthy?

Is an Anchorman Really a Journalist?

DURING A WASHINGTON POST web discussion, a reader asked former CNN anchor Leon Harris if news anchors are really journalists. Harris responded:

"An anchor SHOULD be a journalist! I can't imagine a company in this business that would risk putting someone who wasn't in this position. We are the gatekeepers, the last check on whatever is going to go on the air in the name of the newsroom and the company. Plus, context is so important. It allows you, the consumer, to understand the "whys" of the world. You can't deliver that reliably - RELIABLY - without a journalistic conscience."

What do you think? Are anchors simply news readers with good hair and fine diction, or are the people who present the news actually journalists?

Is It Acceptable to Censor Hate Groups?

THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON student newspaper accepted a web advertisement from an organization called the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH). The CODOH claims that the Holocaust never happened as portrayed in the media and history books.

Some people were outraged that the school paper would accept an ad (published for $75) from such a controversial group.

The editor of the paper defended the newspaper by writing, "The UW community has every ability to confront these lies and reject them on their face. To remove this advertisement would assume our community lacks the intellectual integrity to properly define this movement as an affront to objective truths."

Would you accept an advertisement (and payment) from a controversial group? Would not accepting the advertisement be the same as censoring?