Journalism is a very important part of today's world.  It tells people the news and latest stories of the United States and around the world.  People go look to a newspaper, magazine, or news website because they want to know what's going on.  Then you have down right stupid people who think they're journalists when they're not and spill a bunch of junk that is not even true on the internet.  Some people are drawn to the graphic images and videos that always leak to the internet when a tragedy happens, others not so much. The question of what should exactly be shown on the news, written about in the newspapers etc. Should we really let people see the gory photos and videos of people? Is a little fuzzy and I myself am 50/50 on this.

    I think the media's job in a tragedy is to focus on pin points of the tragedy and write stories on those pin points.  With the Boston bombing I think for a lot of people it would have been better for them to see the stories of the heroes who helped others that tragic day because let's be honest now, we know they're are going to be different news websites who are going to focus on the gory things of that day.  For the local news I think putting those hero stories out there and maybe some graphic pictures for the local people to hear would be better because they're getting some kind of effect of that day and seeing a little bit of what those people went through. Focusing more so on the overcoming of the injuries and such would be good here to because people still want to know what's happening.

    For parents who want to let their child see this and let them see what happens in a tragedy or for another reason I think instead of the gory pictures, show them the picture of the guy helping the injured women and teach them what they can do in a time when everyone around them is in total panic and let them see the good out of that day. At the same time you want them to know that what these men did was not ok and they hurt, killed a lot of people. I would show the faces of the guys and have them see who people are looking for in Boston and that they have no caught them and people are safe, but let them know they're some thousand miles away they are safe here in Minnesota, and no harm will come. 

    For the people in that tragic situation living in that town, or city at that point and time I don't think they should be getting gory and graphic stories.  Only the stories on heroes and the good that somehow came of that day because that can maybe let them see the upside of that horrific day.  I think the main headlines of that day and the manhunt only on their telly's would have been better because they're living in that city and they are the ones who are in that situation and going through that, not the people of Minnesota or Colorado. Another thing that would have been good is letting them know people are praying for their safety and well being in this time. People want to know others are their for them, all people want that when we are going through something shocking and tragic.

    People can take the Boston's bombings in different ways and people did that with their stories and photos.  I would have focused more on the heroes of the event, the people who helped others and saved people's lives, and the people who are now over coming their injuries.  There is a women who was a dancer and because of the bombs she had to have her foot amputated, now she is determined to get back to dancing even after losing her foot.  Stories like that I think people can feel a little less worried and scared and see the light at the end of the tunnel, the overcoming of this terrible event.  If you're more interesting in the injuries and what kind of injuries people got and just seeing the pictures of what people went through, I think you can go on a website and look for those things, but people don't need to publish them for the world to see on the telly becasue you're focusing on the bad of the situation, but what about the good and overcoming? As crazy as it sounds I think good still did happen that day.

   Consumers on the media of today have a divine right and choice weather they want to see the bad stuff of any tragic event that has happened.  You have many journalists independent or working for some big news station or newspaper that will choose to do the good stories, or the stories that focus on the killings, kidnappings, or abductions.  In some cases it is good for people to see the graphic and gory stuff when it comes to learning something important from that, or it's a situation where you could help find him/ or her, or them, but I think in times when the situation has nothing to do with us here in Minnesota we don't need know the bad details.

    January 9, 2003 students from a Ohio school distract sued their school distract; Wooster City School Distract on the grounds of violating their first amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of press. The plaintiffs attended high school at Wooster High School and were editors at their school newspaper the Blade and the school distract stopped the distribution of the newspaper because it was believed the newspaper contained a defamatory article.

     The students filed for a First Amendment case and while in court these students pushed for a temporary restraining order and seeking for the release of the newspaper for distribution. They were denied the temporary restraining order because they lacked factual information. Instead the judge filed a stipulated judgment and the two parties agreed to distribute the newspaper December 20, 2002. On January 15, 2003, the Distract distributed the modified Blade issue.

    This Blade issued an article on the Boards' underage drinking policy and accused the Board of violated the policy by giving preferential treatments to athletes that have been caught drinking. The Blades' advisor approved of the articles' publication and they made their standard 4,500 copied the issue featuring the story. An involving on the people quoted in the article who was drunk and interviewed for the article made the superintendent have the principal stop the press run of the newspaper.

    I think this case is interesting because the students were writing something about their school and it was truth, but the school board didn't want to caught. In my opinion I think this shows how much control a whole school distract has over the school newspaper. It controls the stories we print and put out for all the see.

Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier


    From this case I learned a lot about freedom of speech and how limited we are as students in school to say what we want and feel, even in a school newspaper. Finding out that public schools can limit our freedom of speech in school, but not the government, doesn't make sense to me. Hearing the other cases I learned that the 1st Amendment is everywhere and somehow really our rights to the 1st Amendment has gone down because of our socitey and the world we live today. It was interesting to hear someone say, "I love my country, but hate the goverment." Learning this all means... I know my limited rights in school and out in the world. I know as a journalist what my limits are when I write a story and put out in the world for all to see.

    Limitations that have been paced on the media are I think for the most part right. As a journalist you wnat people to look at your story and read. You want to be published in a newspaper, or tabloid and ultimately people want money. So you'll see any one do what they need to do get the job done so they get their cash prize at the end of the month. In other cases I think the media as in papparizzi need more restrictions, as a person I put myself in that celeb's shoes and I know I wouldn't want a camara man in my face every five seconds walking down the sidewalk. As for articles and writing I think there it's fine because writers can wrtie and update people on the controversal issues of today's times and people can read and see all sides of the a story.

    For school media and limiting us with speech and having the right to take out a story, or whatever, I think we need just a little more freedom. I think if we weren't so restricited then we could talk about bigger and more controversial topics and students oculd read them and hopefully get a reality check, or just open their minds. We do have the right ot freedom of speech and to take part of that away is wrong. In the Hazelwood case the principle decide he didn't like the topics of teen pregency and divorce that were written and instead of telling the students he just took out the stories. At least tell them; is what I think and through going to court and the Supreme Court it was ruled that though government may not have a say in speechin pubblic schools, the school does.