IN A VERY brief editorial on Friday, the Rocky Mountain Collegian's editorial board wrote, "F*ck Bush."The expletive was spelled out about twice the size of a headline. The actual headline read, "Taser This."
Advertisers pulled out a reported $30,000 worth of revenue from the Colorado State University newspaper. Alumni complained. A national debate about free speech erupted. And now the paper's editor in chief may lose his position.
Young people are fine with cursing, right? So the problem probably isn't that the language was used. It was how it was used, right?
Did the paper have the right to publish what they did? Shouldn't they have thought about losing advertisers? Shouldn't they have done a deep investigation rather than a lazy, two word editorial?
Or did the staff simply present what everyone was already thinking?
14 comments:
The paper has the right to publish what it did but I don't think it was the best idea. While it doesn't bother me, I looked at the first few responses to the and the readers didn't seem too happy. I would assume they did a pretty deep investigation and instead of writing a thorough report, they took a stab at wit and failed miserably. "F*uck Bush" is what you say to your TV as he addresses the nation or at a protest near Washing Sq. Park in the comfort of disgruntled NYU students--not on a (once) respected website on the world wide web..
I proably was't the best thing to do. Especially is Colorado is a red state. i still concur with the statement tho...
Brandon Duhart
The paper should not have published that expletive word, speak less even enlarge the word. That is crossing the line. Living in America, everyone is entitled to their opinion but there should be etiquette behind it especially in a newspaper where people read. Yes, we do hear that word in our day to day lives but we do not read that word in newspapers in our day to day lives. I do not think that the newspaper thought about losing their advertisers. They did not care, at that point, what their advertisers thought. They just wanted to get their point across. Also, they shouldn't have been so lazy and written a two-letter word. They should have backed up their claim with why they did not like Bush.
Esther Akintoye
Clearly, this is not a reliable source of information. As we've heard before, the internet makes it possible for almost anyone to be a journalist. There's a difference between ranting and a high quality editorial, and yet this isn't much of either. But simply calling it an editorial gives the paper the right to publish just about anything; they suffer the consequences of their actions, such as loss of advertising revenue. People sometimes take the term free speech too far. You can't curse on television. What makes you think you can in a newspaper?
Surely they could have found a better way of saying what they said. Maybe supported their opinion as well. They're silly to think they wouldn't have gotten into trouble for such a stunt. I think the editor in chief should be held accountable.
The paper had the right to publish what it did. That being said advertisers have the right to pull their ads. I feel that it is free speech to write that but it would have been better to have written an article as to why they disagreed with the tasering of that student. Writin F*ch Bush was not the most mature thing to do...even if its what everyone was thinking.
I think it is important to realize that this was published in the editorial section. While the language was crude on a college campus in the editorial board I think that explicatives should not be that big of a deal. If this were a paper reaching a large base it might be a different story although I repeat, it was editorial... that's not supposed to be objective.
Marisa Block
I think the editors of the paper should have considered that a decent percentage of their readers would not appreciate such an explicit expression of ideas. They could have found a much better way of getting the same exact point across without publishing something that some would find so offensive, and then they wouldn't have to worry about all these consequences. When I heard this story on the news, I couldn't help but think of our editors and advisors and of all the other people that see the paper before it's published...and I'm really curious to know how this got past so many sets of eyes and actually made it to print. I mean...what kind of statement are they really trying to make? A statement insulting Bush or a statement that they can do anything. Free speech aside, no media outlet is above the opinions of its audience. They would cease to exist if they constantly published things the audience found offensive. Like you said, it sucks, but it's all about the business. These writers and editors should have been able to draw the line between what's okay to say among friends and what's okay to publish for the world to read, and somehow that line seems to have disappeared in this case. It makes me wonder if it was really just a terrible case of bad judgement or if they were looking for controversy for whatever reason.
Marisa Block is a cool name to have.
in terms of business the words should have been edited. you have to think about what the people supplying you with money are going to say about what you're writing (which is kinda of terrible in a way). But i do think they were just saying what everyone is thinking and it's about time. maybe journalist and other writers should start saying what they are thinking. maybe then the President will come out of his bunker and hear what we have to say.
did anyone read that story about the President's isolation from public media opposing his personal views in this months Vanity Fair? i was highly upset!
Just because people curse doesn't make it acceptable for a newspaper. opinions not just one. Journalists are supposed to be neutral right? This incident makes us look bias to me. The lack of thought that went into this editorial is embarrassing. The editor should be held accountable because they need to learn from this mistake.
Obviously the editor had some strong feelings regarding his political stance. The error in his ways occurs in his not offering the audience any textual support or evidence to back up his claim. It is a classic case of utilizing emotion to propel a story rather than truth. It's bad journalism to show hints of opinion (in sections that aren't OP-ED) without sufficient unbiased proof of the statement.
-Kami Mattioli
The paper should be able to publish whatever they want, but why publish an "article" with no value? If the paper wanted to present some sort of argument, filled with information and reasons as to why they dislike Bush, that would be perfectly fine. But that's too much work. The Colorado State University newspaper was simply thiking "a lot of people don't like Bush, so printing a 'F*ck Bush' graphic will make people like us... Brilliant!" I don't have a problem with the language or the message, just the laziness.
--Bill Matz
Enea said...
The media should not have said those comments, because Bush tries hard to make the country safe.
Post a Comment