In a recent article on freedomforum.org, David L. Hudson Jr. writes about the attempts of congress to implement further restrictions on cable and satellite broadcasting.

Currently, the cable and satellite industry has little restrictions set on them and so they are more able to show violent and "inappropriate" materials.

While, I don't want to see people being gutted or gang riots on my cable channels I don't want to see these regulations taken too far.

The point in cable and satellite is to provide shows for people are more grown up and want to view more adult materials (and no, Im not referencing "adult videos "etc. )but simply stuff that I can relate to more than ABC morning cartoons or Will and Grace.

If we allow congress to regulate our cable and satellite, whats next? Are they going to want to make sure textbooks don't say too forward of things or novels from apporaching too sensitive of subjects. SO, while we should make sure its semi-tasteful I don't want to see my cable become just like my network tv.

GET REAL

The AP recently posted a story on the firstamendmentcenter.com, talking about the recent case turned down by the supreme court in which a smoker in california was suing tobacco for their target marketing to teens. The court declined to hear the case because they said it was within the first ammendment and the company was fine.

Really people? If someone sued every company because they're ads targeting people. We would have moms suing Wal-Mart because they but everything from there. Woman suing Covergirl because they wear makeup all the time and only buy covergirl. We'd have men suing Budweiser because they bought a big giant horse and drink beer all the time.

People should be smart enough to know what ads are. YES, they are an attempt to get you to get their product and yes they target specific audiences, but if you're stupid enough to not ask questions and get their product, thats your own fault and you deserve what you get!

Brett Favre-Inspirational to Journalism?

In a recent article on poynter.org by Jacqui Banaszynski, she discusses how Brett Favre's football career and his moral and actions on and off the field can be put into a lesson book for the newsroom editor.

Personally, I have no clue. I don't think I have ever watched a single professional football game-let alot Brett Favre and how he has acted in the NFL.

But from reading her descriptions and reasoning, I agree.

I also think that while these ideas and rules or whatever you want to call them most definitally apply to the editor, I think alot can also apply to a staffer as well.

She talks about working with joy and how Favre loved his job. I think this is one that applies to everyone. If I was to go in as a writer LOVING the story I'm writing and loving the interviewing and everything, than my story is going to be better!

Take risks- I think this is more of a editor specific guideline. As an editor you need to take risks when deciding which stories to write. You shouldn't be afraid to write the story on the violent sorority president, even though you know you are going to get flack for it.

A big one I agree with is giving credit when its due, there is nothing better than hearing your editor say THANK YOU and GOOD JOB! Hearing this makes you want to keep working hard to get those compliments and those who don't get those compliments want to work hard so they can begin to hear them.

BUT there was one idea I didn't agree with. The idea that you should expect the best from your staff and nothing less. While in theory this is a good idea. The truth is you can't. You're going to have the writer that can't write or usually messes up quotes or interviews or gives incorrect info. So why should you expect something different and expect a better result, to only be disappointed?

Read the entire article at:
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=101&aid=139070