Even after a week of the infamous headliner, "F--K BUSH" people are still talking about. Personally, I do not see anything wrong with the article. People have been very dissatisfied with his performance in the oval office.
In addition, the editor should not be reprimanded for using free speech. He had approval of other newspaper constituents. Therefore, if he is being held in contempt so should they. It can only be fair.
In the end, I believe that CSU got the notoriety that they wanted. Even though they lost 30,000 in advertising they received more fans in the long run!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I completely disagree with the stance Colorado State University is taking regarding David McSwane, editor-in-chief of The Rocky Mountain Collegian, after he printed the article “Fuck Bush.” McSwane should not have to resign due to him practicing his First Amendment rights in which we were all born with. Some foolish Americans actually support President Shrub and “the work” he is doing. So of course, these crazy people would have a problem with the “Fuck Bush” article. They may even take it personally.
I hope that McSwane does not resign due to the pressure he is facing from a number of individuals and organizations. He needs to stick to his guns and continue to stand up for what he believes.
I personally love the title of the article! Who knew that by putting two words together someone could make such sweet sounding poetry? Then again, I do not think anyone would have thought that Bush would have fucked up this country as badly has he has.
I too agree that McSwane is not in the wrong. He has the power to print what he sees applicable to the students and others that read his paper.
Freedom of press does state that the press is protected from all forms of government. The article was not plotting an attack on anyone, it was only someones opinion and was strictly criticism. I do not feel that McSwane should be reprimanded, because he was not in the wrong.
I believe everyone has the right to say what they feel, because we do belong to a country with freedom of speech. However, there are different ways of expressing how you feel besides using profanity. It was a good way of receiving public attention, but I think as a journalist you should take in to account all of your audience and how they may react. You could choose to express how you feel and reap a backlash of losing your avid readers. I believe this title that was used was a way to catch peoples attention.
I agree that everyone has the right to say what they want and has the right to free speech. The thing that I disagree with about this is the word choice. I think this language is offensive and should not be used in professional writing in any way. There are other ways to put it, it may not be as strongly expressed but you have to show some form of professionalism. I feel like this shows way too much bias, it is one thing to disagree with the president but a whole other to use profanity in print about him. Many young people will not take offense to this but the older generation would take a lot of offense to it which is a big deal. This makes him look ignorant because he can't think of any better words than profanity.
I definitely feel that David McSwane was not wrong in this situation but I think he could have chosen a title that didn’t have any profanity in it. I personally am not a fan of Bush but I do think as a journalist you are suppose to uphold some type of professionalism in your writing. Using profanity in your writing is taking away the creative aspect in writing. I feel McSwane could have used more creative words for his title that really could have made Bush look more stupid than usual. The profanity he used made the article look childish in my opinion. I also feel looking at the situation McSwane was practicing his First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and press. He shouldn’t get punish for that.
Post a Comment