Columbine

In Salon.com's article "What you never knew about Columbine," the author, Joan Walsh, first reviews Dave Cullen's novel of Columbine, and then follows up with a personal interview. All in all, I found this piece very engaging and interesting, and for me it raised many ethical questions.

In the interview section, Dave Cullen speaks about how he and his publishers had to decide whether or not to print a certain fact he uncovered from the Columbine tragedy. While researching for his novel, he discovered that the idea that a female student was shot because she said "yes" when one of the shooters asked her if she believed in God, is actually false. This story was very widely known, many religious organizations and churches named this girl as a martyr, and her own mother wrote a memoir for her about her connections with God, and how he led her through life, and through death. The news of this encounter also appeared on various tv shows. However, in the end, Cullen and his publishers decided to let the public in on the facts, and to print that that experience never actually occurred the way many were told it did.

In the article, the author and Cullen agree that they couldn't not tell the public the entire truth, when Cullen was already discounting other Columbine myths as well, even if it proved fault in some religious organizations and the mother's memoir.

Was this the right ethical choice? Was it an ethical choice at all, or rather a marketing one? Did the publishers consider the ethical ramifications or merely how much more money the book would make if it was controversial?

Ask a Wingnut

In the article, Ask a Wingnut, the author discusses how the media is biased towards the liberal side, aka the media "unscrews to the left." The author also comments on how unlike the rumors, the media is not to blame for the GOP to lose in 2006 and 2008. Instead, the journalist remarks, "It wasn't the media that went on an orgy of spending mimicking the behavior of sailors on liberty; it was congressional Republicans. It wasn't the media that turned its back on the principles of limited government; it was the Republicans. And it wasn't the media that nominated John McCain for president (though the media helped by anointing him its favorite Republican) — it was the Republicans. So conservatives don't really blame the media for the election losses in 2006 and 2008. We blame ourselves, which is why what we have been doing, airing our internal ideological laundry in public, has been so much fun for you to watch. And for the media to cover, gleefully."

Although this wasn't one of my favorite op-eds, i think the author did answer the contributor's question well, and made it entertaining to read. I think they answered the question in an opinionated, but fair and factual, way, and that it was overall written well. Did it make me believe her opinions completely? Not really, but i think they did make a good point of trying to convince their readers. I do give them credit on the headline though, it drew me in!

3/8/09

In the article in the New York Times, Moderation and the Modern Mom, the author uses vivid humor, and amuzing anecdotes to connect with her readers.  She talks about how becoming a parent forces you to become responsible, a subject that to many would not seem to make a quality OP-ED.  However, she takes the position with such originality and really spices up her article.  It was fun to read, as well as insightful.  Her use of language clearly captivated her readers, as well as conveyed her message across fully.  I thought the article, even though it wasn't controversial or political, was charming in a way, and I'm glad I read it.  These days much of the news and media is depressing or violent.  This article was witty and simple, which was a nice break from the madness.