Who Controls the Internet?

AN ONLINE college gossip site is causing a stir at some universities. On Juicy Campus, you can post just about anything.

The New York Times wrote about the site today, citing a Juicy Campus post that outed a Yale University student as a porn star. And the post had a link to videos (not the NY Times' post, you perv).

Should this kind of information be regulated? Should anyone be able to post information online? How would you feel if your life was broadcast to the world?

Would you read a site like this? Isn't Facebook getting creepy enough?

(I already checked ... Temple is not a participating university)

Off the Record, You're a Pain in the Butt.

BARACK OBAMA'S FORMER foreign policy aide, Samantha Power, called Hillary Clinton a "monster." And then she tried to take it back.

"We f***** up in Ohio," Power told a reporter from The Scotsman, a newspaper in Great Britain. "In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win. She is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything."

What do you do at that point? First she says something that would definitely be newsworthy, then she tries to restrict you from using it.

Would you publish the quote?

Broadcast News Behind the Lens.

PLEASE SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS about today's guest, Pete Kane, an NBC10 photojournalist who was honored in 2007 with a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists.

Did he inform you about things you had not considered? Did you think about journalists working seven days per week, on holidays, over night and 33 hours straight when necessary?

The anchors and reporters get the face-time and the glory. But it's people like Pete who see the city at it's most grassroot, gritty and sometimes rawest level.

Who Is Responsible for Online Comments?

AFTER THE REDSKINS' Sean Taylor was murdered in his South Florida home, rumors and speculation about his death floated everywhere, especially on the Internet.

Some commenters on newspaper and blog sites assumed that Taylor was involved in something negative (drugs, violence, etc.) and that was why he was killed. Sometimes, the commenters became racist - Taylor is African American. They made assumptions about his life based upon the color of his skin.

Some media companies have people who monitor comments and they eliminate the rude and possibly defamatory ones. But that requires a person monitoring every story online and every comment posted. That is a lot of work that many media companies cannot afford to cover.

Who is ultimately responsible for material like that being published online? Can you blame the media outlet for what commenters post at the bottom of online stories?

Is it wrong to censor comments? Shouldn't the public be allowed to have a voice? Or do the media have a responsibility to maintain civility?

By the way, if you have not read this story by Inquirer sports columnist David Aldridge, read it now. It is a wonderful appeal to end violence.

In The Heart Of Darkness?

NATIONAL PUBLIC Radio newscaster Jean Cochran reported that president George Bush was going to visit Africa, and Cochran referred to it as the "Dark Continent."

Then she was stunned to learn that people were offended by the phrase.

"I will concede antiquated but I was unaware it was 'racist and irredeemable,' as one person put it in an email," Cochran told NPR's ombudsman. "I was floored. Am I insensitive? I don't know how that could be since I didn't know there was anything to be sensitive about. I understood the term to refer to the African jungle. It's a canopy blocking out the light. A geographical term."

The phrase, by the way, dates back to the colonial era of Africa during the 19th century.

Was Cochran insensitive or is this a case of the political correct police running amok?

Note to Self: Get Involved.

A NEW ONLINE youth culture mag, Urbaniti, is now posted. It is operated by Temple students, and they are looking for people to get involved.

Get involved.

And post your comments about the site here.

Does Anyone Want Serious Journalism?

NEWSPAPERS ARE losing circulation at a pretty rapid clip. Television ratings are down compared to past years, largely because there is just so much competition out there. And the mag business is as difficult as ever (most magazines don't last 5 years).

But here is a story about a British-based, global magazine - The Economist - that is not only surviving, but thriving.

"The magazine expects to show 13% circulation growth in its upcoming filing, on top of the 8.5% jump in the number of advertising pages in 2007," reports MarketWatch. "With a circulation of about 722,000 in North America now -- and more than 1.3 million in total -- the magazine intends to crack the 1 million threshold on this continent in the next five years."

The amazing thing? They actually do serious, investigative journalism on a weekly basis. They take a world perspective on events from the war in the Middle East to nanotechnology.

"The Economist tries -- hard -- to reach smart people, eschewing the kind of broad audience that Time and Newsweek target," the MarketWatch story continues. "In other words, don't expect to see Britney Spears or her ilk grace the cover of the Economist."

Do we need to give readers their Britney covers to lure them to read the real news inside the magazine (or newspaper, website or television newscast)? Or will Americans actually read probing reports that don't involve celebrity exploits?