College nude magazines coming to a town near you? (Ethics)

While I was randomly searching through online blogs, I came across one discussing the publishing of nude magazines on college campuses. I went to the original article, which was published more than a year ago by the New York Times. This will shock you.

------------------------------------------------------------

College students are creating and publishing nude magazines of students and models, but it's not necessarily a form of pornography. According to a Harvard staff member, his or her reply to one criticism was that "if you aren’t mature enough to tell the difference between playful nudity and pornography you probably shouldn’t be reading H Bomb [Harvard's nude magazine publication].”

-------------------------------------------------------------

It's not about sex and nudity. It's the glorification of the human body in all possible forms, whether that is through erotic and sensual poses. One former model asks the question of why she should not pose nude: "'A body is a body is a body, and I’m proud of my body, and why not show my body?'" So, why not?

--------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure some readers are outraged by the article and questioned today's generation of ethics and morality; this is not something you want your parents hearing about. Is it OK for a school, such as Harvard, to approve funding for these sorts of publications? Or does it depend on the demographics and students attending a particular university? I'm not sure, but what I do know is that if one were to start here,, all hell would break loose, or at least for the time being.

-------------------------------------------------------------

So, why should Simpson not publish a magazine similar to Boston University's "Boink" or Harvard’s "H Bomb?" The first time I read the article, I actually considered the situation I'd be in if I started one. If I were the editor, I'd of course operate it differently and choose the spreads I wanted. You don't have to agree with me, but carefully read and reread the article. I'll admit that some of the spreads are too crude, but essentially these schools' objectives are not to create pornographic materials. Hmmm, maybe I should be attending Boston University? And what has happened to my conservative values?!

L.A. Times botches story

The L.A. Times recently announced its misuse of false documents in its implication that rapper Sean Combs had acquaintances carry out an assault on rapper Tupac Shakur in 1994.

------------------------------------------------------
The investigation was sparked by an article posted on The Smoking Gun, claiming the L.A. Times use sketchy documents as a basis for the March 17 story. Pulitzer Prize writer Chuck Philips, writer of the Tupac story, and his Deputy Managing Editor Marc Duvoisin both apologized. Philips claims a former FBI agent analyzed the documents and said they were authentic. Articles on MSNBC.com and The Smoking Gun point out the source's not-s0-creditible characteristics. According to Philips, he now believes he was "duped."

-------------------------------------------------

What is the lesson here? JOURNALISTS NEED TO TAKE DOCUMENTS SERIOUS. This story raises ethical concerns of how much journalists question the legitimacy of any type of received document. If a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter doesn't further investigate his or her documents, their creditability takes a hit. Not only that, but the fact that Philips is a "winner" and was "duped" only makes me question the serious of other journalists when they review information they've received.

-----------------------------------------------

But what I'm confused about is, how could a former FBI agent believe the documents are real, and The Smoking Gun gather information that they were fabricated? Is this really an error on Philips part, or the FBI's? According to the original L.A. Times story states that they were "relying on information from an unidentified FBI informant and other interviews." Oh really? It was an "unidentified" informant. So much for animosity when the story proves false. No wonder people are becoming frustrated when newspapers don't reveal their sources. The usage of sources reminds me of the ones "unidentified" in the New York Times John McCain story claiming the friendly relationship between McCain and the lobbyist to exist. Were those real sources?

(It wouldn't let me double space between paragraphs)

One-Stop for ALL your news

News organizations have been a bit slow to catch on, but have finally begun advertising themselves on Facebook. An article on Poynter.com explains how media, such as The New York Times, America Broadcast Company, Chicago Tribune, and News Public Radio, are disseminating information to the younger generations.

Hooray! I tip my hat to whatever media is becoming involved with Facebook. With less and less young people reading the news, it has become harder to engage their attention and support. One of the quickest ways to receive news is to become a Facebook fan of some organization, and alerts are directly sent to you. So many people are "addicted" to Facebook, so what better way to receive news when people aren't directly going to news sites. The internet is constantly changing, thus allowing for different outlets to receive news. Facebook is becoming a one-way stop for personal and national news. Not only would you receive presidential information, but also who's in a new relationship!

Are you sure that's right? (Newswriting)

Eight newspapers in southern Brazil are working towards creating a more effective fact checking and copy editing process. The effort is name the Error Prevention Packet. The packet, composed of work by American and Brazilian professionals, contains helpful information for journalists to use when writing stories.

Basic highlights of the projects includes a database collection of errors between the eight newspapers, a checklist of the five most common copy and editing errors, and a manual focusing on individual division sections. If you read the article, it contains more specific and detailed information.

Why haven't American newspaper implemented a program such as this? Not only are corrections entered into a database, but it helps to trace patterns of mistakes. With the American public criticizing the reporting of journalists, maybe they'd feel more comfortable if newspapers had a systematic procedure to check facts, names, etc. I admire the Brazilian effort to deliver accurate information. Most journalists take the intiative to make sure everything's accurate but not all of them do, and Americans know this. If the public knew journalists followed an outline to check accuracy, there wouldn't be such a distrust of news.

That came from where? (Newswriting)

In regards to national news involving New York Governor Spritzer, where did the source originate to give the New York Times credibility for the story? Poynter Institute writer, Kelly McBride, raises this question in one of her recent articles posted online. As I was following the story, I was wondering the exact same thing. The Times broke the story, only to give credit to sources close to the Spritzer administration. This article reminds me of the McCain story. Remember? It's the one with the "close relationship" with a female lobbyist. As with that story, two people "close" to McCain's administration revealed or confirmed the information to the times.
What happened to giving CREDIBLE sources? And I'm not talking about abstract credibility, but ones with who said or told or confirmed information. How is the public supposed to believe journalism sources when one paper runs with the story and everyone else repeats the same information? Ultimately, the "one" paper may one day be wrong. With two recent Times stories crediting abstract stories, hopefully the paper is doing everything they can to absolutely make sure no mistakes occur, or else it'll come back to bite them in the ass.

Check and Balance!

Foxnews.com, MSNBC.com, and CNN.com (three common online news sites), each have articles regarding the FBI's improper acquirement of citizens' personal information while seeking data in terrorism investigations. I tip my hat to journalism! The fact that a liberal, conservative, and rather moderate website reported on the same issue, in fairly the same way, is how journalism is supposed to work.

This example represents journalism's purpose of checks and balances not only against the government, but also against each other. Not only have they published the information, but in my opinion they did it in an unbiased perspective as well. This is the first time I've read an article on all three sites and haven't felt the sway of either political side.

The necessity of restricting third parties

According to FOXNews.com, a British mother of two small children was gang raped and the video, recorded on a cell phone, and was posted on YouTube. After officials were notified, the video was taken off the website. Approximately 600 people viewed the episode online. The article does not state whether the three boys who committed the rape were punished for posting it.

According to U.K. law, "sites that host videos posted by third parties must act 'expeditiously' to disable access to them in the event of a complaint in order to avoid any liability that may result from the content appearing."

What's the problem? A graphic, disturbing, and illegal video was placed online. Although the video was taken off, people still viewed this atrocity that should have never been posted online. With the opportunity for third parties to post videos on sites such as YouTube, pornographic or violent content has been posted.

I fully believe Andrew Keen would be disgusted with what happened and would find it to support his view on the downfall of Web 2.0. I have to agree with him. YouTube allows anyone to post on the site, and this is exactly Keen's point. Where are the "experts" to validate posts, such as the one mentioned? Yes, inappropriate videos are taken off, but that's only after someone has flagged it and the proper site officials have reviewed it to take it off. YouTube still allows any video to be posted without first being reviewed; the gang rape is not the first video regarding sex or violence. Where's the education in it being posted? There isn't any. It's sick, and I wonder where YouTube's ethics is when there still is no pre-reviewing of videos.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334818,00.html