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.