A 202er submits this post:
Katy,
The Badger Herald published a transcript from a rape victim who was supposedly raped at Sigma Chi. We talked a lot in discussion today over whether its fair that the victim was able to mention the fraternity, but didn't have to release the name of her sorority. Looking at it on the flip side, what if the accused went forward with his side of the story and said the girl's sorority but not his fraternity. Should the accuser have more rights than the accused? Also, would testimony like this unfavorably sway opinion in her favor because the investigation is ongoing? This reminds me a lot of the Duke Lacrosse trial where the team was negatively affected by the charges, even though they were found not guilty. Let me know what you think!
http://badgerherald.com/news/2009/03/04/transcript_of_herald.php
I'm curious what the rest of you think of this case. It's being discussed all over campus. But for our purposes, what are the specific media ethics implications? One thing I found particularly interesting was the content of anonymous comments posted to the Herald site. What are the ethical questions there?
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Herald rape story
Friday, February 20, 2009
Editorial cartooning
Read about the flap over an NY Post cartoon depicting a chimp?
What do you think? Was it racially insensitive? Does the fact that it gained attention outside the NY market (where far fewer people know the chimp story from which it was supposedly drawn) makes any difference? How much latitude should cartoonists get? Are they freer to be controversial?
Remember the Muhammed cartoon controversy that even hit on our own campus?
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Should news organizations endorse candidates?
TIME magazine's managing editor offers an intriguing question: why do newspapers endorse political candidates?
I'm curious what you think. You are the generation at issue here. What does it mean to you if the Wisconsin State Journal says it thinks you should pick, say, McCain over Huckabee. Take it closer to home. Does it matter who the Herald or Cardinal endorse as the best in the race? Does that kind of endorsement affect how you judge their objectivity or credibility?